BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Using marajuana is more dangerous than drinking beer because it kills brain cells.

I agree that marijuana has psychological effects on people. This is a point I have never failed in agreeing with. However, simply saying that these psychological effects are worse than the psychological, physical, and emotional effects that alcohol can have on someone. My opponent has failed to refute any of the evidence I have provided and such should be cnsidered by the voting users. To finish my case, I would like to compare and contrast the side effects presented here. First off: "Marijuana users who have taken large doses of the drug may experience an acute psychosis, which includes hallucinations, delusions, and a loss of the sense of personal identity. Short-term psychotic reactions to high concentrations of THC are distinct from longer-lasting, schizophrenia-like disorders that have been associated with the use of cannabis in vulnerable individuals" Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we refer to as "getting high. " This very description is the short-term side effects and why people tend to partake in (and even enjoy) the usage of marijuana. It make folks feel good for a time and it allows them to escape reality for a bit. While yes, these are abnormal psychological effects, this doesn't necessarily make them bad. Actually, many of the people I've personally seen in this "high" tend to space out, get rather philosophical, find many things hillarious, and experience an acute case of hunger. Secondly: "They brain regulates the entire bodies. Including all of the organs you mentioned that are affected by drinking. In addition, marijuana thinking problems affects the person's ability to drive (danger to others) -- and use the motor skills of their entire body. " Well, hooray. You've failed to make a note of my statements showing that alcohol does this as well. As I said, alcohol impairs motor skills and works to create other, more pressing psychological disorders in people than a short period of "acute psychosis. " Alcohol leads to dementia, strokes, depression, dementia, neuropathy, anxiety, and (in extreme cases) when these get rolled into one, the user may actually be lead to suicidal thoughts and tendencies. To my knowledge, marijuana has not led someone to killing themselves through a series of psychological disorders. On top of those neurological problems, you then move into the organ problems such as liver failure and multiple forms of cancer. Funny enough, marijuana is not considered a carcinogenic and thus, it has not been shown to create the entirety and multitude of health risks that alcohol has. In conclusion, to say marijuana is more dangerous because it "affects thinking" is ridiculous. To say it affecting thinking is worse because the "brain controls those organs" is also ridiculous.
Using marajuana is more dangerous than drinking beer because it kills brain cells.

That marijuana is must worst because it affects "thinking" is absolutely true. Why? Because your thinking affect EVERYONE else. First, it affects thinking because it affect the brain. They brain regulates the entire bodies. Including all of the organs you mentioned that are affected by drinking. In addition, marijuana thinking problems affects the person's ability to drive (danger to others) -- and use the motor skills of their entire body. It also affects a person ability to generate/create NEW BRAIN CELLS. So, it affects future memory and thinking in addition to present. This is from The National Institute on Drug Abuse: "Marijuana use impairs a person's ability to form new memories (see below) and to shift focus. THC also disrupts coordination and balance by binding to receptors in the cerebellum and basal ganglia""parts of the brain that regulate balance, posture, coordination, and reaction time. Therefore, learning, doing complicated tasks, participating in athletics, and driving are also affected. Marijuana users who have taken large doses of the drug may experience an acute psychosis, which includes hallucinations, delusions, and a loss of the sense of personal identity. Short-term psychotic reactions to high concentrations of THC are distinct from longer-lasting, schizophrenia-like disorders that have been associated with the use of cannabis in vulnerable individuals" http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Using marajuana is more dangerous than drinking beer because it kills brain cells.

To say that marijuana is much worse than alcohol simply because "it's worse to kill brain cells because it affects thinking" is simply not true. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there may not be psychological effects from marijuana but alcohol has many more present dangers to it. Alcohol acts as an impairing device. It impedes one's senses and their reaction times. This, in its own right, is a way in which alcohol affects thinking. Through its ability to impair, alcohol also clouds judgment capabilities and can lead to people dropping inhibitions and doing things they may not normally do. In pregnant women, the effects of alcohol can be still birth or a combination of mental and physical birth defects in their children. Thus far, I am unaware of any studies showing marijuana to have the same effects on pregnant women. To quote directly from the CDC (Center for Disease Control) website, long term effects of alcohol include, but are not limited to: "Neurological problems, including dementia, stroke and neuropathy. Cardiovascular problems, including myocardial infarction, cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation and hypertension. Psychiatric problems, including depression, anxiety, and suicide. Social problems, including unemployment, lost productivity, and family problems. Cancer of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and breast. In general, the risk of cancer increases with increasing amounts of alcohol. Liver diseases, including" Alcoholic hepatitis. Cirrhosis, which is among the 15 leading causes of all deaths in the United States. Among persons with Hepatitis C virus, worsening of liver function and interference with medications used to treat this condition. Other gastrointestinal problems, including pancreatitis and gastritis." Source: http://www.cdc.gov...
Charmandar is so much better then Bulbasaur

Huh, what? I snoozed off due to all the forfeits. Did I miss anything? Apparently not. Yeah, you know the drill. Since my opponent forfeits, he drops his arguments. With no objections to my arguments, he has failed to uphold his stance is therefore loses the debate. I thank my opponent for the debate and the audience for reading. Buh-bye. :D
Charmandar is so much better then Bulbasaur

Bulbasaur: Sleep powder: 75% accuracy Poison powder: 75% accuracy Charizard: Fly: 90% accuracy Smokescreen: Reduces opponent accuracy Venasaur: No attacks have elemental advantage against Charizard This information was provided by a kind, reliable source. As my opponent is well aware, Pokemon's natural moves (moves they learn by evolution) are considered natural talents. However, Pokemon are physically able to use certain TMs. For example, if you were in a fight and you found a sword to use, that is not considered a natural source. You did not 'learn' the sword. You found it and it increased your own abilities. Thus, the sword and TMs are alike. My opponent mentioned that most of Charizard's moves are not long-range. For example, Flamethrower is considered a long-range atack. Fly is considered a long-range attack. You cannot say that if Charizard is Flying, that it is not a long-range weapon. Bulasaur's (and Venuasur's) Poison or Sleep powder is indeed short-range. Very short-range. He could not attack Charizard if he did not come close. And Venusaur's powders are slower to use than Charizard's speed attacks such as Fly. another long-range attack is Wing attack. That is an attack that is harmful to the opposing Pokemon. My opponent also mentioned Venusaur's Synthesis attack. As all are aware, in the Pokemon games, if you were to use the same attack over and over again, you would run out of PP. In the 'real world' (or in the anime), Venusaur would be unable to move whilst using Sythesis, thus giving Charizard and oppertuninty to attack with a fatal Flamethrower or any fire attack. My Sources: Charizard: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... Charmander: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... Bulbasaur: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... Venuasur: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... I do believe that my opponent is not fully aware of the extent of our debate, as he keeps bringing up the statement that the are both 'equal'. I ask that the public reading this debate, support Affirmative. Thank You. I again await my opponent's arguement.
Charmandar is so much better then Bulbasaur

I would like to point out that my opponent brought up that Charmander 'would be soaked into submission by a full water attack.' As my opponent fully knows, Bulbasaur has no water attacks. Therefore Charmander would burn Bulbasaur, and Bulbasaur would be unable to defend completely. Another point I would like to bring up, is that Charmander is a real Pokemon. It is listed as #4 in the Pokemon Pokedex. Another Contention, is that Charmander evolves into Charmeleon, which evolves into Charizard. Everyone knows that Charizard can fly and breathe fire. It can be considered a true dragon, such as dragons of mythology. Bulbasaur evolves into Ivysaur which evolves into Venusaur. Venusaur is a slow, cumbersome creature that could be easily avoided if needed. It cannot fly, and it cannot move fast enough to keep up with faster Pokemon. Thus, Charizard (the final evolution of Charmander) is superior. And since it evolves from Charmander (through Charmeleon), Charmander can then be called superior to its opponent Bulbasaur. I await my opponent's rebuttals.
Charmandar is so much better then Bulbasaur

My opponent had made one point; he has contended that since charmander could burn Bulbasaur (in other words, since Bulbasaur is vulnerable to Charmander's flame powers), Charmander is better. However, what my opponent fails to acknowledge is that whereas a full water assault would mostly be ineffective against Bulbasaur, Charmander would be soaked into submission quite easily. In other words, Bulbasaur would have a better chance against the likes of squirtle or mudkips than Charmander would. Ergo, since both have such an effective weakness, I conclude that Charmander is not "so much better" than Bublbasaur, but rather equal when all things are considered. PS: "Charmandar" is not the name of a Pokemon. And that'll do it for now.
The day of worship for Christians is Sunday

I choose to have round 1 of my argument to be just a introductory round. Worship day vs. Holy day First, I am a bit confused as to the topic of this debate and would like PRO to clarify. Do you perhaps mean the Holy day is on Sunday now for Christians? I ask this as there is a difference in keeping a day holy and worshiping on a day. For example, I can worship on a day and not keep it holy. It is of my understanding that everyone who worships the Redeemer is to do it every day, not just once a week. Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name for ever and ever. - Psa 145:2 . .. he (Daniel) kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God. .. - Dan 6:10 Emphasis Nehemiah Gordon, a Karaite Jew, has a fantastic video available on YouTube called "The Greek Jesus vs. the Hebrew Yeshua". In it he explains this exact thing you are talking about. Take the following verse: Ye shall not swear by name falsely. .. - Lev 19:12 So Nehemiah explains what the Pharisees did in Yahushua's day; they reasoned, "Oh I can swear falsely, just don't use God's name when I swear falsely. " Though I do not agree with many of Nehemiah’s view points, I do agree with him on how doctrine is not to be in contradiction with scripture as the Pharisees has done. Development of doctrine It is true that doctrines develop and should develop. But the question is, is the developing of the doctrine in the correct direction? And on that note, what is truth as we see there are 40k Christian denominations all having their own idea of what truth is. So when it comes to development of doctrines, again I must stress that a doctrine cannot put the scriptures to be in contradiction and has to be in line with the rest of scripture. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. – 1 Thessalonians 5:21 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: – 2 Timothy 3:16 Argument I will now await for PRO to give clarity on the topic and put forth his argument.
The day of worship for Christians is Sunday

I look forward to reading his response. I won't be making my affirmative case as of yet. I'd rather simply illustrate how I plan on approaching this discussion. My opponent is free to either make his initial negative case this round, or simply accept the debate. Both me and my opponent will be quoting the Bible (sometimes even the same verses). The key, I believe is deciding which approach is the best way to interpret those verses. I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once: Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase: I never said you stole money. Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote that meant I never said you stole money. .. He said it. Or. .. I never SAID you stole money. .. But I sure thought it. Or. .. I never said YOU stole money. .. I said she stole it. Or. .. I never said you STOLE money. .. I said you borrowed it. Or. .. I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car. Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later? Development of doctrine. Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the difference between development versus departure is this. .. Is the teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip. Development versus departure.
Doctors are mostly unnecessary.

1. I said MOSTLY unnecessary. Thus, surgery for accidents is not included. Note - In nature, if an animal is badly injured it eventually dies through hunger or is eaten by another animal. Humans have created an unnatural environment for themselves where they can get a second chance to do something stupid again. 2. Brain surgery is mostly unnecessary. Humans eat unnatural foods which can create blockages throughout the body. The fine blood vessels are the first to block. The brain contains a lot of fine blood vessels which can easily block with a bad diet. Thus, if somebody needs brain surgery it is most likely because of blocked blood vessels which may cause a tumour to form. Thus, most brain related problems are self induced because of the individuals own reckless and irresponsible eating habits. 3. Quote - "New diseases are being created" Note - There is only one human disease which is called - vitamin deficiency disease. Thus, you are right in a way. All diseases are just a creation of the human imagination and new ones are being thought up all the time. lol Note - The medical world likes to complicate things so that people are intimidated by medical science and think that it is something that it is not. Thus, medical science is just a thousand year old fraud that has been perpetrated onto the human race ever since the first witch doctor rattled his magic stick in the deepest jungle of Africa. 4. Note - I eat a Paleo diet and have no need for any medications, headache tablets, sleeping pills, dentists, doctors, psychologists and medical specialists of any description. That is because agricultural products like grain, sugar, fat and dairy cause most disease.
Doctors are mostly unnecessary.

You say that doctors use out of date techniques and that they are not necessary. But how many times have they saved somebody life. It is true that some illnesses can be treated at home but what about the major things. Not everybody knows how to correctly amputate a leg or a arm. Not everybody knows how to perform brain surgery correctly. Also the technology that is required to help that isn't just magically made. It cost money to make that, it's not cheap. These out of date techniques seem to work. There is also the fact that new diseases are being created. I don't with your claim because if you were to get hurt bad your saying that you wouldn't depend on the doctors to help fix you.
Jesus had 2 dads and he turned out ok

1. That sounds like he was a bit of a d*ck We probably should have defined 'okay'. I think that anyone who has the capability to orchestrate such a large scale occurrence is definitely okay. 2. Of all the words to describe the Bible's idea of civilization, 'accurate' isnt very high on the list... I wasn't referring to the Bible's idea of civilization, I meant the fact that to trick people thousands of years ahead of his time, he would have to understand how we think, and what an average life in future civilizations would be like. 3. Oh thats a real d-bag move by him then I'll admit this, but that doesn't mean he didn't turn out okay. Of course, it could have been an evil twin. . . Eviler. 4. He could have had slaves carry him everywhere like a Pharaoh, that certainly was an option and he more then had the option to have his own servants. But what would that do for his image? He couldn't look like all the other religious leaders of the time, he needed something to set him apart. So he decided to present himself as the common man. 5. Yet he still was so bad at it he had to switch to religion. This is just another difference in interpretation. I think that he never intended to be an architect. You think that he just couldn't accomplish it. 6. Blind faith to what, Zeus and the Greek Gods? He could have went to Greece and Italy and converted people there rather then raise trouble in the Middle East, im pretty sure that the reason its so unstable over there is because of some of his actions! If he had tried to convert anyone in Greece, he would have been killed immediately(again) for disrespect of the gods. The same is true for most regions of the world. In the Middle East, he would have a slightly better chance due to the preexisting instability of the region. I think this debate suffered from a miscommunication. I interpreted 'okay' as meaning 'having exceptional capabilities', while my opponent seems to have interpreted it as 'a good person'.
Jesus had 2 dads and he turned out ok

" He managed to fool billions of people(1) into believing that a godly power would smite all who oppose it"That kinda sounds like he was a bit of a d*ck "Jesus was able to accurately estimate the very nature of civilization"Of all the words to describe the Bible's idea of civilization, 'accurate' isnt very high on the list..."He probably had his identical twin killed instead of him"Oh thats a real d-bag move by him then"Also, sandals were basically the nicest footwear available at the time period."He could have had slaves carry him everywhere like a Pharaoh, that certainly was an option and he more then had the option to have his own servants. "Architecture is a terrible career, and in general a waste of time."Yet he still was so bad at it he had to switch to religion. "Jesus clearly had better things to do, like many other people."But he didnt simply decide to give it up, architecture was too hard for him despite the fact that any of us could master it in a few weeks. "He knew that he couldn't convert people in the rest of the world, due to their preexisting blind faith."Blind faith to what, Zeus and the Greek Gods? He could have went to Greece and Italy and converted people there rather then raise trouble in the Middle East, im pretty sure that the reason its so unstable over there is because of some of his actions!In summary: Jesus got crucified, destabilized the entire Middle East for millennium, and was a sandal wearing hippie. He did not turn out 'ok' and whether or not having 2 dads caused this still doesnt deny that he came out pretty weird.
Jesus had 2 dads and he turned out ok

It's obvious that Jesus turned out to be an inspiring man(re: okay), despite the fact that he had two fathers. He managed to fool billions of people(1) into believing that a godly power would smite all who oppose it(and coincidentally himself, as well). We even reset the timeline in honor of his birth. This would have been extremely difficult to accomplish, and there is no way that anyone who didn't turn out 'okay' could even come close this amazing feat. One would have to predict the precise gullibility of society for (at least) 2000 years in the future. 'The true test of a great man - that, at least, which must secure his place among the highest order of great men - is, having been in advance of his age.' "Henry Brougham Jesus was able to accurately estimate the very nature of civilization, and form his religion around the flaws that he uncovered. Any man intelligent and skilled enough to orchestrate such a wide-scale scheme turned out 'well'. Rebuttals: 1. He got crucified He probably had his identical twin killed instead of him, but if he did in fact die on the cross, it was because he was so far ahead of everyone else that they killed him out of jealousy. 2. He was a hippie The 'help the poor, feed the hungry, only take what you need' was clearly a part of his act. Also, sandals were basically the nicest footwear available at the time period. 3. He was a failed architect Like you said, any engineer could do it in their sleep. . . And they usually do. Architecture is a terrible career, and in general a waste of time. There are a few cool creations, but even these will degrade over time, and require constant maintenance. Jesus clearly had better things to do, like many other people. 4. He lived in the Middle East Jesus obviously had to go to the Middle East to preach. He knew that he couldn't convert people in the rest of the world, due to their preexisting blind faith. Sources: http://www.pewforum.org...