BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is religion good for society

One major problem with religion is that it keeps threatening people to join or the will be eternally dammed. Parents force their kids into religion at a young age so by the time they are old enough to think for themselves they have effectively been brainwashed into thinking that their religion is correct and this can cause prejudice towards people of other religions this mainly happens in the middle-east because there is no separation of church and state so every person goes to a school that is tied to a certain religion. While on the subject of religion in schools I think religion should not be taught in schools because schools are a place of learning and not a place for personal beliefs this include private schools and public schools. Let me be clear the bible should because it is classic literature but should not be given any special treatment because it is just a fictional book I mean you do see people worshiping The Giver do you but that is just as true as the bible and other religious texts are. Religion is something that has been in society as far back as recorded history but that doesn't mean that it is good for society I mean look st how many deaths religion in general has cause. Let me be clear this debate was about is religion in general good for society not is one specific religion good for society and if you look at the bad morals of religion and the good morals you will see that the bad out weigh the good and if you look at the positives and negatives of religion you will also find that the negatives out weigh the good. Religion is a bad habit that needs to be broken and change is always just a few generations away. So if we start now our world might be a better place where people don't kill people because of differences in belief instead we would have a world where things would be backed by evidence and if someone can't prove something it is dismissed until someone can prove it. That is the world I want to live a reasonable world in which people believe in what facts or math or some other tool that we use to decibels the universe tells us. That is where I want to live.
Is religion good for society

Let me start by saying science will always be here whether I am alive or not so science is also eternal. Religion is one way that people jump to conclusions by trying to say I have figured it out God or some figure has done it all they have created the universe end of story. In my opinion however they are answering the question before they really ask it. Also I have morals but they do not come from religion they come from reasoning and thinking things through. The reason I believe we have morals is because when the human race were cavemen we found that it was better and more efficient to work in groups so as to benefit ones self one has to benedit the group and now these things such as stealing which you mentioned has become engraved in our brain and thoughts that it is bad. Let me also clarify by saying that religion as a whole has done a lot of good things and bad things. And yes I am being general about saying religion has caused many wars because I am speaking for religion as a whole including every religion. I do recognize that there are some in fact alot of religions that don't teach scientific ignorance and also some that have never caused a war but most religions at one point in time have caused a war or at least a massive amount of killings.
Is religion good for society

First, I have to make a distinction. I am not generalizing religion, as you are. There are many religions that do not teach ignorance to scientific fact, or cause wars, or follow books that are written thousands of years ago. I speak in defense of my own spiritual and religious calling. Religion is the center to the morals of our daily life. It is the thing that would keep you from committing a crime even if you can get away with it. It is the thing that gives a moral compass to millions of people who, instead of seeking to undermine a system, will seek to benefit it. It is in the very fiber of our existence. Just the fact that you are writing this is proof that you have some sort of moral compass, at least one that has kept you from causing harm. Religion doesn't teach ignorance agains scientific fact, it instead offers its own explanation for events and facts. Science is constantly changing, improving, getting better. I like to think of science as a great puzzle, one that we have many pieces of today. Religion offers the whole puzzle, and so vast is it that we, with our tiny pieces of science can't see the whole puzzle without religion. Where will your science be in 1000 years? My religion however, is eternal.
Is religion good for society

Religion has caused thousands if not millions of deaths. Religion has started alot of wars just because of differences between belief. Not to mention the bad morals religion teaches when claiming to teach good morals. These such morals are murder for difference in belief and I could go on and on about these terrible morals. It also teaches ignorance against scientific fact and evidence just based on a book that was wrote a few thousand years ago and it also causes people to push away reality.
Why should people stop polluting

The Con interprets the resolution as meaning that people should stop practices that cause pollution, since arbitrarily stopping all pollution is impossible. Contention 1: Impossible to "stop polluting" Humans have been polluting since the stone age and will into the future. By creating disposable items for survival we will create waste--and that waste is our pollution. On a more recent note, pollution is happening in new ways--chemicals and emissions being the most common topics. However, unless a boundless and waste-free energy source is discovered, there will always be waste. In order to "stop polluting", humanity would have to cease existing. The Pro standpoint is illogical. Contention 2: Good things have pollution The Oil and Gas industry is ripped on for causing so much pollution. But that industry employs millions of Americans, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and allows life as we know it to continue. The ambulance that took you to the hospital? It polluted. That medicine you took to save your life? Was made in a polluting factory that has to dispose of with chemical waste. The basic idea of the Con side is that the good accomplished by polluting outweighs the bad.
Beck makes better music that radiohead

I've considered it, and I will give you another chance before I prosecute you for being a troll. You seem to put forth ok arguments sometimes, but other arguments you have creates are absolutely ridiculous. I am accepting this debate because the resolution is too subjective. You need a more debateable resolution that both sides can present arguments in. Voters will vote based on beliefs, not arguments. Keep producing those good arguments and stop with the subjective debates.
Tobacco is more harmful than Marijuana

My opponent makes a good case, in that Tobacco (namely the Nicotine) takes less to OD on, and so it is more likely for that OD limit to sneak up on you than it is with the THC from Marijuana. While, by the numbers, it is "more" likely, in a real world event, it isn't really plausible for either to be able to "sneak up on you. " Even if you were to smoke 20 mg of Nicotine every hour (25 cigarettes each hour), you'd take 10 hours to reach that fatal dose of nicotine (I think you'd die of other things first, after smoking 12 1/2 packs of cigarettes in a single day). It isn't so likely that one would be able to go through all that and claim at the end that it snuck up on them. I would next like to address my opponent's claim towards "smoker's cough" and other side-effects. It is important to note that these effects are not unique to tobacco and its chemicals, but to the effects of smoke in general on the body. Which can come from smoking too much tobacco, or from smoking too much marijuana, or from inhaling too much smoke from the fireplace over a long period of time. So it is not accurate to list those effects as effects of tobacco. My opponent also addresses that the release of adrenaline from the nicotine (which is not present with THC) causes hunger to be surpressed. While THC causes people to get hungry. Looking at the US and other developed nations, I have to wonder which is a worse side-effect, causing people to eat less? Or causing people to eat more? Given the obesity rate, I'd venture a guess that eating more is probably the worse effect. I know that this is technically a strawman, but should it be brought up that in the world as a whole, starvation is a bigger problem, I'd like to say that starvation does not occur because people are not hungry, but because there is no food for them (if this wasn't the last round, I'd wait for the actual argument to be made). I'd like to sum up what has been shown here so far. Even though the nicotine in tobacco has a lower LD50 than the THC in marijuana, it takes more nicotine consumed each hour (about 3 times as much each hour) in order to reach that dosage because of how much more quickly the body processes the nicotine. So we know that nicotine is less likely to kill you (it is worth noting that no one has ever died from a THC overdose from marijuana, there have been several ODs from THC pills, but there has never been an OD from nicotine from a credible source). It seems that the effects of the dopamine release from both the nicotine and THC are going to cause some similar effects (addicting, kidney strain, blood pressure, and heart rate), the differences for each should be reminded. While nicotine releases adrenaline (strain on heart and blood pressure), THC effects the sodium in the brain (causing the pyschoactive effects listed earlier). While each person is free to determine which efferts do greater "harm" for themselves, it should be noted that in worse case senerios, hearts and kidneys can be replaced, brains cannot (as of now).
Tobacco is more harmful than Marijuana

I sincerely apologize for my forfeit in the previous round, but I'll proceed to try to address most, if not all of my opponent's points. Firstly, my opponent points out the chemicals in marijuana stay in the body longer thus making it easier to overdose. However, because of the quick intake and quick release of the chemicals in tobacco, there could be cases where one doesn't actually know how much they're taking in. This could serve as a potential risk to tobacco smokers. As pointed out before, it doesn't take much of either to overdose. Secondly, my opponent mentions the effects of each on the body. Because of the release of adrenaline while smoking tobacco heavy smokers could potentially starve themselves. Smokers of marijuana, on the other hand, have not been known to experience such effects. To address the long term affects, without the proper release of dopamine from the brain your cognitive abilities, sleep, mood, attention, memory, and ability to learn are all affected. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Without these basic functions a person would have slight difficulty even carrying out simple tasks. As my opponent pointed out, long term marijuana use seems to mostly only affect memory, not having the release of dopamine so much involved. However, the physical effects tend to be much the same such as the strain on the kidneys. Lastly, tobacco use also has other lighter effects not yet mentioned in this debate. Some unpleasantly affect your physical appearance such as yellowing of the teeth and fingers and gray complexion. Other effects include smoker's cough which is a reaction to your body trying to remove the harmful chemicals, circulation problems(smokers become more sensitive to heat and cold), shortness of breath, lack of energy due to the oxygen flow being interrupted, dry mouth, dizzy spells, and lastly many smokers eventually lose their senses of taste and smell. Not having a sense of smell, a smoker could leave the company of fellow smokers smelling unpleasantly like tobacco and not realizing it among other things. . http://www.acneskincaretreatments.com...
Tobacco is more harmful than Marijuana

As stated, I'll be arguing that tobacco is more harmful than marijuana. I accept my opponent's definitions and good luck to both of us! I'll begin this debate by mentioning that tobacco cigarettes contain over 4,000 different chemicals. These include benzene, Formaldehyde, Ammonia, Acetone, Tar, Nicotine, Carbon Monoxide, Arsenic, and Hydrogen Cyanide to name a few. Many of the harmful effects are listed here: . http://www.quit-smoking-stop.com... Obviously, Nicotine has also been proven to be one of the most addictive drugs. For many people it can often takes months, even years to stop using it. It is also worth pointing out that about 440,000 Americans a year die from tobacco use. (. http://www.nida.nih.gov...) These figures equate to about 18% of the total deaths in the US annually out of approx. 2,423,712. . http://www.cdc.gov... This is substantial. I have decided to keep the first round brief in order to give my opponent a chance to create an argument for his side. I'll now be handing it over to him. Good luck!
Tobacco is more harmful than Marijuana

I thank INH for accepting this challenge. I will be defending against the claim that "tobacco is more harmful than marijuana." Since the purpose of this debate is related around the question on whether marijuana should be legal or not as a recreational drug, we should only be considering the chemical effects of each plant, not the economic implications, nor weird situations like, if a 500 lb bag of compressed marijuana leaves falls off of a 7 story building and hits you, it would be no different than a 500 lb bag of compressed tobacco leaves. Some definitions. Harmful - being capable of causing harm. Harm - negative effects to the personal body (this includes the brain) Tobacco - the leaves of the Nicotiana genus of plants (commonly refered to as tobacco plants). Marijuana - the leaves of the Cannabis genus of plants. I will let my opponent go first. Thank you,
Marxist methods of teaching and Marxist ideologies should be implemented in school curricula

High school curricula should be focused more than they are at present on utilizing the pedagogy espoused by Paulo Freire and on encouraging students to understand communism, by which I mean an economic theory espousing these three principles (lists your stated principles 1,2,3). I recognize that my assertion may be proven invalid if either (a) true communism is shown to be unachievable or (b) that education would not be improved by either (1) Paulo Freire's critical pedagogy approach or (2) students' better understanding of communist principles. My opponent's only limitation is that he cannot use real world examples of the consequences of the implementation of communist principles." - This is my extended topic as it could not fit into the confined space. Recently, within the year, I was introduced to the Communist Manifesto by my English teacher. From reading the Manifesto, examining the core beliefs and speaking to a professor of philosophy who has given Marxist seminars, I have concluded that if more people were to be open-minded about the idea of communism (in it's true form) that education could be improved with teaching styles like those of Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed). First one must look at the belief system in it's simplest form and if it's achievable. To address the latter, yes, I do believe it is achievable. As to the former, my interpretation of Marx's and Engel's is as follows: 1. The distribution of wealth (monetary value) should be controlled, by the people, not the government (more on that in a second) for the reason that money in all societies has dictated who assumes positions of power and influence and those who were not so fortunate to be gifted with the ability to ascend others in intelligence or conveying of it (biological determinism, sort of) are inevitably doomed to be subservient the the people of the former. If society as one, could agree that one must contribute to society in the best way they could, that money would not need to be centralized on more 'important' jobs such as a lawyer, dentist, doctor, politician etc. 2. All man is equal in their state of being, no one person should rule over the other, or else tension will be emanated from a class struggle (ties closely to first core principal). 3. Government need not to exist. Once, from the observation and learning of history, man understands the negativity associated with a ruling entity of any kind, government will be abolished and will wither away because of people's ability to cooperate with one another without the need for someone to dictate how they should go about it. (i.e. Old Major's preached society within the farm. Animal Farm, George Orwell)
The Roman Empire is better than Norse (vikings)

My opponent conceded the following: Rome lost the military campaign against the Vikings. Rome lost territory to the Vikings. Rome paid the Vikings to work and fight along-side their military. Undeniably, history sees the Vikings as the superior. The 16th century scholar Tacitus wrote:"Arminius, without doubt Germania's liberator, who challenged the Roman people not in its beginnings like other kings and leaders, but in the peak of its empire; in battles with changing success, undefeated in the war."My opponent accepted the burden to prove that the Roman empire is better that the Norse Empire. I would argue, in order to be greater, you cannot suffer an unrecoverable military defeat by this opponent.In that sense, I fulfilled my burden to prove that the Roman empire is either worse or equal, yet certainly not better. In fact, I could say:"The better man won". Let the evidence show, the better man was a Viking hero who destroyed Rome from within, even going so far as to achieve moderate nobility within his enemy culture. Vote Con. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Roman Empire is better than Norse (vikings)

that part I have to admit is true, but like i stated in my previous round, Rome became weaker after capturing Carthage. Hannibal was one of Rome's greatest enemies to state out, more legions were lost in the Punic wars than every other feud there was. The siege of Carthage lasted three years until they submitted due to starvation. with the alliances of the barbarians. Rome's society became more "composite" because of mix of Goths and Romans at the time. The barbarians were hired as specialized units but they were also day laborers as well because there wasn't enough workforce in the camps. Rome had realized the power of their barbarians neighbors. Barbarians started to migrate into the Roman empire and expanded it unlike their allies in the south. you said that Vikings helped the romans but they joined the military force of Rome, yes they supported Rome but the generals of rome had to be Roman, not Goth. the reason why Rome didn't capture Germany because they were going to get low profit from wasting a lot of wealth to gain the land. (I know I probably lost in this debate but at least I learned from my failures and that's a important lesson) sources: http://www.historyworld.net... , http://www.fsmitha.com...
The Roman Empire is better than Norse (vikings)

My opponent declared that “the fall of Rome wasn’t just because that the Barbarians sacked”. I’m perfectly aware of this. I never said that Rome fell only because of the Vikings. I said: The Vikings enjoyed a military victory that Rome never recovered from. Rome lost territory to the Vikings. Rome eventually allied with the Vikings for their military prowess. Rome not only lost the war with the Germanic tribes, it began to depend on future military alliances with the Vikings just to retain its southern territory. Consider the German folk hero “Hermann”, also known as Arminius. His victory campaign against three Roman legions was considered by most to be the beginning of the end for the Roman Empire. “German, Roman, and British historians recognize Hermann as one of the most ingenious personalities whoprecipitated the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of a Germanic Europe.” (Hermann Missouri, 2010) http://www.hermannmissouri.com... (Hermann Missouri, 2010)
The Roman Empire is better than Norse (vikings)

The fall of Rome wasn't just because that barbarians sacked. Rome's military was strong enough to hold of the barbarians. during the time, Rome was spilt into three sides because of three cousins wanted the throne after Constantine II died. later the three sides turned into two, West vs East. The sack of Rome was during the failure of gaining the western side of the whole Roman empire to bring it back together. If Rome hadn't spilt, it would held against the hordes of barbarians and subdue them. another reason was Hannibal, he was Rome's greatest foe which took three Punic wars to capture Carthage which was described as a "Paradise for homosexuals" i have nothing against gays but that also led to Rome's fall. 1. Rome's military would held against the barbarians 2. Rome turned weaker after capturing Carthage 3. The civil war disturb all of Rome ps. I'm new to this site so sorry about the topic and this is my first debate online but don't take lightly on me, I want to be challenged. sources: http://www.roman-empire.net... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
The Roman Empire is better than Norse (vikings)

The first Norse tribes are mentioned by a Greek navigator in the 4th century. The tribes where sighted around Jutland and Norway. (F. Owen, 1960)The later tribes where divided by region, but distinctly connected by heritage and culture. The tribes included: Allemani Anglo-Saxons Burgundii Lombards Saxons Goths From 247 AD to 269 AD, the Goths engaged Rome in relentless skirmishes. After killing Emperor Decius in battle, the Roman empire was forced to recognize the sovereignty of the Germanic tribes. Emperor Constantine eventually entered into a political treaty with the Germanics, paying the tribes a substantial retainer to assist the Roman empire in securing the southern regions of western Europe. (Watkins, SJSU) The Viking bloodline beat Rome in battle, forcing a surrender of territory. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com... ( F. Owen, The Germanic People, 1960)http://www.sjsu.edu... (San Jose State University, Watkins)
The Roman Empire is better than Norse (vikings)

Rome is better than Norse in many ways which i will explain in the process. Rome has lived for a short time but they brought order to western Europe, made a language which was the root for many languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian. They also were smarter than the Norse because they made technologies that been the basics of many machines today. Rome is more recognized in the world than the Norse in many ways. Romans have even effected our way of life like marriage. In other words, I had a dispute with a friend who likes and supports the Norse and I want somebody else to challenge me in explaining me why Norse civilization is greater than the Roman empire.
The Institution of Socialism

Forfeiture is inexcusable, so I take the time now to announce I will be offline for quite some time. Voters and my opponent, please do not count this against me. I must prioritize; there are more important things than debate.org. I have to devote more time to school and personal projects of mine. I urge my opponent to rebut and refute my argument, but I will eventually return and write an intense, distinct rebuttal. Again, please forgive me and continue the debate without me. I assure you, I will be available again by the beginning of round four.