BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Weed Should Be Legalized As It Will Improve Our Economy and Contains Almost No Health Problems

Thank you for posting your last debate. I do not blame you for attempting to prove me wrong, for that is what a debate is. You said, "We are never going to be able to stop something completely as we try as hard as we can to prevent drunk driving. We will not ever be able to completely stop it." No we will not be able to completely stop it, but my point is that if we legalize marijuana there will be a lot more people who drive while high. Why make that number go up when we do not have to? There would also be many more deaths, of people driving high, and people who are hit by people while high. In no way am I misleading, I simply stated what my source said. If you read it you will find it is not talking just about pregnant mothers. The title of that section is 'does marijuana affect the human reproductive system?' In the section it does talk about pregnant women, but it also talks about temporary loss of fertility, and the harmful effects during adolescence. But if you want another source I will provide you one at the bottom of this page. You keep saying that you and the government are not responsible for holding the hits long, driving while high, and health problems. But the point is that, like I said before, there will be lots of more people who use it, creating more health risks. The government would be responsible for those problems if they legalized it. Concerning alcohol and cigarettes, the fact is that in a way they can be gateway drugs. But a smaller percent of people will turn from cigarettes to marijuana than from marijuana to cocaine. In many drug addict cases, they started with something really small, cigarettes. Then they took some marijuana, they then tried cocaine, then something harder. Another bad thing about marijuana is burnout, a term first used by marijuana smokers themselves to describe the effect of prolonged use. People who smoke marijuana can become dull, slow moving, and inattentive. It is obvious why this is not good. If there is an emergency, people who are high have a less chance of surviving. Audience, I hope that you can see that we do not need to risk the lives of people. Smoking marijuana does not only endanger the user, but everyone around him. Legalizing the drug means more dead men women and children. It is the last thing that the world needs right now. Thank you. Sources: http://ajph.aphapublications.org... http://www.uc.edu... http://www.articlesbase.com...
Weed Should Be Legalized As It Will Improve Our Economy and Contains Almost No Health Problems

Thank you for your respond, You claim that people's motor skills are not affected by marijuana, and that they can still think clearly. If you believe this, why do you say that it is not okay to drive while high? According to your sources, marijuana relaxes and sedates you. Relax means abatement or relief from bodily or mental work, and sedated means calm, quiet, or composed; undisturbed by passion or excitement. If a car is speeding strait ahead at a car, someone on marijuana will take longer to respond, risking their life. The fact is that if we legalize marijuana people will still drive while high just like people still drive while drunk, even though alcohol is illegal. There will also be people who smoke marijuana and drink alcohol at parties. It is already dangerous to drive drunk, imagine people driving drunk and high. Studies also show that marijuana affects adolescence, a period of rapid physical and sexual development. There will be many problems in the future with deformed children. You said in round one, "What kills the brain cells is when the user holds their breath. Any stoner knows the answer to this just don't hold your hits in as long." The reason people hold it in longer is to get a bigger high. Even though some people won't do it, there will be many people will. It does not only hurt brain cells, but the lungs too. The smoke is in direct contact with the lung tissue, even if you do not hold it for long. Marijuana smoke contains some of the same ingredients in tobacco smoke that can cause emphysema and cancer. Lots of marijuana users also smoke tobacco. The combined effect of smoking these two substances creates an increased health risk. Marijuana smoke has been found to contain more cancer causing agents than is found in tobacco smoke. I did not say that everyone who takes marijuana will turn to other drugs, but some people will one day think, why take a drug that makes me feels alright when I could take a drug that makes me feel even better. Let me try to make an example of how legalizing marijuana will hurt many people. Lets say there are ten people, 4 of them have taken marijuana (40% of Americans have tried marijuana) two of the four who take marijuana only take it to "relax". But the other two realize that since marijuana makes them feel good they are going to try something even better.....Cocaine. Now let's say they make marijuana legal. There will be many more people who take it since it is okay to take. So let's double the rate of people who take it, 80%. So now instead of 20% of the ten turning to a harder drug, 40% will. I believe that there will be many more people who turn to a harder drug. Audience, it is obvious that with all the world's troubles, we do not need to add one more thing to the list. My opponent has so far listed his beliefs (and has done a superb job doing so). Though, I heavily urged a con vote. Thank you. Sources: http://www.quit4good.com... http://www.nida.nih.gov... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Weed Should Be Legalized As It Will Improve Our Economy and Contains Almost No Health Problems

Hello, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate with you. You claim that marijuana would improve our economy, I admit you are right. It would help, not fix, but help. But that is not a reason to legalize something. The fact is that marijuana is dangerous Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. When smoked, it begins to effect users almost immediately. The short-term effects of marijuana include: •Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch) •Problems with memory and learning •Loss of coordination •Trouble with thinking and problem-solving •Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure • There is already a high rate of deaths from driving under the influence. Many people will get into a car and not be able to function properly, risking their lives and the lives of others. When on marijuana one does not realize that he or she is not functioning correctly. Within a few minutes after smoking marijuana, the heart begins beating more rapidly and the blood pressure plunges. Marijuana can cause the heart beat to increase by 20 to 50 beats per minute. Because of the lower blood pressure and higher heart rate, researchers found that users' risk for a heart attack is four times higher within the first hour after smoking marijuana. Smoking marijuana can cause burning and stinging of the mouth and throat, it also causes heavy coughing. Scientists have found that regular marijuana smokers can experience the same issues a tobacco user can have such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illnesses, increased risk of lung infections, obstructed airways Studies show that children born from mothers who smoke the drug exhibit some problems with neurological development. According to those studies, prenatal marijuana exposure can cause altered responses to visual stimuli, increased tremulousness, problems with sustained attention and memory, poor problem-solving skills. This is not fair to the child. Marijuana contains more than 400 different chemicals. Some of these chemicals are very harmful, but I shall discuses that in round two. Another problem with marijuana is that it is a gateway drug. Many people will one day want to take something a little better than marijuana, Cocaine or heroin. I would like to ask, are you a user of the drug. The drug would not benefit you until you are either 18 or 21. The odds of congress approving a harmful drug and allowing minors to take it are very slim. Also, the list that you have is farce. Hundreds of kids a day die of choking on cheetos, their have been many deaths because of the stupidity of people when they are high. Some people think they can do things that they really can't I have many other things to talk about, But I will save that for round two. Thank you Sources: http://faculty.washington.edu... http://ncadi.samhsa.gov... http://www.nida.nih.gov...
Vocal Rap Challenge #1: Fans vs. Fans

Vocal Rap Challenge #1: Fans vs. FansPick your favorite emcee or rap group. His, her, or their songs will be your ammo. You must rap 1 or 2 verses from either just one song or one verse per song of theirs.Rules:1. Judging criteria is based solely ona. Audibility; b. Pace; c. Flow (NOT ON HOW POPULAR THE SONG IS).2. Audibility determines how well the judges heard our words; Pace is the timing of your vocals; Flow is the sound of your vocals.3. Audibility points (Conduct); Pace points (Reliable Source); Flow (S&G and Convincing)**S&G=Flow had some bad & good areas; Convincing=Flow had more good than bad elements; Awarding both S&G/Convincing points to debater means YOU'RE saying "flow was so good the bad hiccups aren't a concern to me". Also, if you choose, S&G can go to the lesser flow if there were some good vibes you liked.4. Audio recording: a. MP3 or Wav. format; b. uploaded video; c. both.5. Written text of the lyrics is ONLY mandatory if you are reciting a rapper with a Chopper style such as Twista, Bone Thugs, Eminem, TechN9NE, E-40, etc.6. Each fan is limited two (2) artists, each debate & MUST KEEP the same artist & verses per debate. You cannot switch artist or verse in R3 or R4.7. If this debate proves popular, the winner continues the challenge in another debate under "Vocal Rap Challenge #2: Fans vs. Fans". The loser is eliminated & prevented from accepting further Vocal Rap Challenge #2, #3, #4, etc.8. R1-rules & acceptance & Con must announce his one or two artists & the songs & who's verse it is IN ROUND ONE; R2- Pro must announce his artist(s) & the same; Con presents lyrical text of the one or two verses of his/her artist(s); R3- Pro presents lyrical text of etc. etc. etc. AND Con uploads his/her vocals IF ONE ARTIST/TWO VERSES OR TWO ARTISTS/TWO VERSES, Con uploads JUST ONE VERSE. R4- Pro uploads his vocal renditions & Con uploads his/her 2nd Vocal if applicable as mentioned in R1.9. Both are permitted to use same artist, same verse in an attempt to upstage their opponent for Flow/S&G-Convincing points.10. Judges are permitted to join but must decline judging privileges.EXAMPLE:Fire_Starter005 accepts.50 CentIn tha Club, Verse 1ShadowKing accepts this challenge.Now enter Vocal Rap Challenge #1: Fans vs. Fans.
Medical Coverage for Genetic Disorders

As my opponent has not posted a argument, and has forfeited, I will post my opening argument. For the following reasons, Medical Coverage should cover the cost of Genetic Disorders. 1. Its not their fault. People with genetic disorders should not be responsible for covering the cost of a Genetic Disorder as this is not something they brought upon themselves. It wasn't a choice. Unlike smoking...Thats a personal decision that is being made by ones self. That person knows the risk. If they get cancer they have brought that upon themselves. Why should we say to people with a Genetic Disorder, that Medical won't cover that, when its not something they brought upon themselves. 2. Discrimination. Why should we get to discriminate people who have Genetic Disorders? Why should we say your Medical plan won't cover that? Discrimination is a terrible part of our world, that we have to live with. But discrimination to someone with a disability or a disorder thats even worse. 3. Research. Lets say someone has a Genetic Disorder/Disability. This is someone who doesn't have a steady income, and is struggling to make ends meet. He fonds out that his Medical plan doesn't cover it. So he doesn't get any medical treatment as can't afford it. But, think...If he would've gotten that treatment, because it was covered for by Medical Plans. Doctors could've have done research for this certain Disorder and came up with/Researched amore in-depth of what exactly this is, and came up with a way for these people with that certain disorder to live better! But going back to reality, this man, couldn't afford it. So none of that happened. Normally at this time I would move on to Refutals but my opponent has failed to make a argument. I would ask voters to please teak that into consideration.
Centrally planned economy is NOT the most optimal economic development model

In that case I hereby conclude this rather uneventful an disappointing debate. Centralised planning is not the most optimal mode of economic development. It worships bigness for the sake of bigness. It creates a sham progress where exaggerated progress are caused by the doctoring of figures by frightened officials. It robs individuals of creativity, independence and freedom. The system is against the rule of law, placing the planners above the rest of the population and to give these few individuals too much power. The system is clumsy, unfair and inflexible. Worst of all, the totalitarian atmosphere of centralised planning creates a downward spiral to a world of imaginary progress but real despair. The planners aim to solve some market failure by terminating the market will eventually create a nightmarish regime. The failures and dangers of central planning was told by many, from Hayek to Acton, to Orwell and even Marx. ..
Centrally planned economy is NOT the most optimal economic development model

I must say central planning also infringes upon personal freedom. The Communist planners, in need to control the flow of labour and capital, as well as the whole economy, must direct every single activity of the citizens. Citizens of these centralised states are essentially assets, living in prison states. Totalitarianism is required for central planning to work, because without positive incentives or 'carrots', the other mean of motivation is by coercion and control.Now to you...
Centrally planned economy is NOT the most optimal economic development model

To start off, a centrally planned economy is defined as:An economic system in which economic decisions are made by the state or government rather than by the interaction between consumers and businesses. Unlike a market economy in which production decisions are made by private citizens and business owners, a centrally planned economy seeks to control what is produced and how resources are distributed and used. The production of goods and services is undertaken by state-owned enterprises. Source: http://www.investopedia.com... It is a system where all goods and services produced, supply and demand as well as almost all of the economic activities in a country is dictated by the government, the party or whoever's 'at the top', hence the word 'central'. Supposedly it will increase efficiency as the wasteful competition between firms in the market had been eliminated. However, although 'wasteful competition' is eliminated, centrally planned economies turn out to be very inefficient.To start off, let's quote examples. The USSR, East Germany, North Korea, etc. are all command economies. But the huge disincentives as well as suppressed inflation, compounded by misallocation of resources (as in different, imbalanced levels of investment in various sectors) had created massive bread queues as seen here: Central planning is very clumsy, the party or whatever organisation in charge tends to coordinate absolutely every detail of production, always with inadequate information, to create what they perceive to be plenty. The party officials do not understand the nature of the economy, always ignoring what the people's objections in order to safeguard the plan. They also do not understand the law of diminishing marginal returns, and too many workers are allocated to the already oversized industrial and military sector. The party also dictates the jobs for every individual, what they must do, where they must live etc. This is not only dictatorial, it is dictatorial in a very FEUDAL style, with the Communist Party 'lords' and the the proletarian 'serfs'.I'm done with my opening statement, I now turn to my esteemed opponent...
Yoda could beat Darth Vader in a Lightsaber Duel

I would like to also point out that his name is "Darth Vader," not "Dave Vader. " Now I will refute my opponent's argument(s). My opponent is saying that we should give Vader a rock, and he would use that rock to go beat up Yoda. However, with a simple Force push, Yoda would have Vader sprawling backwards. Also, Yoda could just use his lightsaber to chop the rock to pieces. Secondly, Vader cannot "take it like a man. " You seem to have neglected to read my second argument in Round 1. Vader is in critical health, and no, he cannot "take it like a man. " One hit to his breathing machine and he's gone. I now am ready for my opponent's second rebuttal.
Yoda could beat Darth Vader in a Lightsaber Duel

Vader can TAKE IT LIKE A MAN (whether you are talking about anal penetration or a physical beating) whereas Yoda couldn't even take a bit of jelly up the japside. Also if you gave Dave Vader a rock, he could just take it to Yoda's skull and fuckk up his face! Here is an example of what could happen: http://www.youtube.com...
Yoda could beat Darth Vader in a Lightsaber Duel

I love Star Wars and especially the Dark Side, but I have to admit that Yoda could beat Darth Vader in a lightsaber duel (from Star Wars). First off, Yoda has hundreds of more years of experience than Vader. From Episode II, we see that Yoda is at least 800 years older than the young Anakin Skywalker (who would later become Vader.) In a lightsaber duel to the death, experience is all that matters. After losing to Obi-Wan on Mustafar in Episode III, it's clear that Vader lacks the experience to fight any Jedi. Secondly, Vader is already in a critical state of health. He's a huge mass of metal, wearing a metal suit just to breath and walk. With one well aimed hit at Vader's midsection, Yoda could completely suffocate Vader in a matter of seconds. We also see Vader's weakness in Episode VI. Darth Sidious shoots a few bolts of Force Lightning at Vader's breathing machine, and Vader dies shortly after. Thirdly, speed and size would be important factors in the duel. Obviously, Yoda is more agile than Vader, combined with the fact that he's smaller than him. Yoda would have a big target to hit, while Vader would have to try to hit a little green creature that's flying around him. I now stand ready for my opponent's case.
Social media does more harm than good

Thank you! In conclusion social media does NOT do more harm than good, here's why: Reason #1 it helps prompte young and small businesses. Reason #2 social media allows people to connect to people from far away and also start new relationships. Reason #3 social media can be a stepping stone to advance ones career and find like-minded individuals. Social media doesn't spread misinformation anymore than misinformation was spread 100 years ago. People who are not curious and open minded will believe what they want regardless of what they are told. If someone says something, or you see someone post information you believe is wrong then look it up. You'll get better at researching over time and help further prevent the spread of misinformation. Just don't be afraid to make mistakes! People are also just as antisocial today as they were in the past. People that are antisocial are that way because it's a part of who they are, nothing wrong with it. Social media has not changed these people or harmed them. Emily, would you accept a friend request if I sent one?
Social media does more harm than good

I wouldn't go to the extreme in saying that the world would be a better place if smart phones and social media didn't exist at all. I do agree that there are plenty of benefits to social media; however, I am stating that it is doing society more harm than good. You talk about how newspapers caused a disconnection between people before. But that doesn't mean that social media makes it anymore better. It's the concept that two wrongs don't make it right. You talk about people being extroverted vs introverted. Sure people can have welcoming faces and you can tell a lot how approachable someone is by body language and facial expressions. However, I argue that it is harder to tell if someone is approachable when their face is glued to their phone. When you mention that if you want more social interactions give them the feeling you are willing to engage in conversation, I believe that means that people have to be willing to put down their pieces of technology and engage in the real world. Congratulations with you and your significant other! You two were able to use social media as an aid as a form of communications you were able engage. But often times, social media becomes the only form of communication for a lot of relationships. I argue that these types of relationships are not genuine. It is hard to distinguish whether these relationships that are soley in the social media realm are meaningful. I think it does take the ability to have interactions beyond just social media in order for a relationship to be genuine between two people. I have enjoyed arguing with you and you have brought up some valid points. I think depending on ones point of view that there are unlimited pros and cons for social media. After this debate, I don't think that social media should be removed completely but it should be redefined on how its used. I think because it is making our society more antisocial in the real world and more social in the cyber community, we need to be less engrossed in it. I think we should use it as a tool to encourage more face to face interactions. Your example of how you met your significant other is a great example of it being used as tool. The issue is that our society doesn't use social media for just that and I think that is why social media is doing us more harm than good.