BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical Marijuana

1st off Medical Marijuana can treat Alzheimer's Disease, Anorexia, AIDS, Arthritis, Cachexia, Cancer, Crohn's Disease, Epilepsy, Glaucoma, HIV, Migraine, Multiple Sclerosis, Nausea, Pain, Spasticity, and Wasting Syndrome. (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...) Medical Marijuana will not cause cancer, mental illness, and those who use Marijuana don't only barly use it but won't use other drugs. (http://www.drugpolicy.org...) Not only that, but 800,000 people each year are arrested for possesion only and if legalized it will decrease the jail birds and it will decrease drug cartel crime in america. Already 17 US states have legalized the drug, meaning that these states have found use in the drug. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... Your move! http://www.youtube.com...
Medical Marijuana

Marijuana is a major concern to the United States. Marijuana, if allowed into the country, would spread like wildfire throughout the US. Recovering addicts would have relapses, more addicts would be created, and rehab facilities may be forced to stop taking in marijuana addicts. Also, Marijuana is unnecessary. Other, less powerful medication can accomplish the same thing, though to a lesser degree, without the major negative repurcussions of Marijuana. Marijuana must not come back to the US.
Intelligent design is not scientific

The term "pseudoscience" keeps coming up in this debate which brings up the question, what credibility does this term have? One may create any term and categorize anything anything as pleased. This does not change the fact that Intelligent Design relates to science as a theory of how all things came into being, little evidence or no evidence. It fits into the definition previously stated, weather my opponent agrees or not. I was accused of using an Incomplete definition. If my opponent was familiar with National Forensic League standards for debate he would know that one can pick and choose which definition of word to use. I specifically stated that I would use a certain definition for the word. While there is no denying that micro evolution is true, one can still argue that macro evolution is a bit fantastical. The fossil record is incomplete in many ways and controversial within many circles. The theory of macro evolution using the fossil record is full of assumptions of observations, not facts. And many times scientists create assumed creatures that they present as the missing link in their beloved fossil record. I am not attempting to discredit the theory of evolution, what i do want to do, is explain that to accuse Intelligent Design as unscientific one must examine other theories of our creation. A scientific theory remains a scientific theory no matter how fantastical or factual it might seem.
Intelligent design is not scientific

First of all I would like to apologize for not completing my rebuttal in the last round. "Scientific" is a very vague and general term. Defined as only "of or relating to science" it comes to an argument to determine what truly relates to science. Categorizing a theory of our creation as this so called "Pseudoscience" does little for a theory that fundamentally admits to needing faith. It is very difficult to discuss Intelligent Design without mentioning Faith, and I would like to be the first to bring it up. One cannot argue that Intelligent Design does not take some level or a strong level of Faith, however faith is not "unscientific." The definition I will use for faith is as follows, strong belief or trust in someone or something. Intelligent Design admits to its necessity of faith, while other theories deny their necessity. Scientist teach that organic matter came from inorganic matter. Scientist do not know how this happened, when it happened, or where it happened, yet they teach that it happened despite any evidence of it happening. It takes faith in scientists and this theory to believe its plausibility. For the theory of macroevolution, one must have faith that this world is old enough and rich enough for different kinds of animals to change from one kind to another. Also one must have faith to believe that a statistical miracle in Genetics can continue to happen over and over again in a relatively short period of time. There is no solid evidence of any of change of kinds, or macroevolution, yet we are taught that it in fact happened. For a theory that is said to be based on "Logical, Factual, Evidence" it also requires a large amount of faith.
Intelligent design is not scientific

Merriam Webster Dictionaries defines Scientific as, : of or relating to science : done in an organized way that agrees with the methods and principles of science This led me to define Science. : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc. I then defined Intelligent Design. :the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence. According to the definition found above, intelligent design, is scientific. Intelligent design is at its core a theory of how the universe was created, no different than the theory of evolution. Many Colleges and Universities present and "formally study" the subject of Intelligent design. It is a theory based on observations of the world, again no different Darwin's theory of Macro Evolution. Intelligent design is not a science, such as biology, hematology, physiology, etc. It is a scientific theory of how all things were created, based on observations and taught in Universities around the world. According Merriam Webster's definitions, Intelligent design is scientific.
Philadelphia Eagles will be the team to beat in the 08-09 season.

The Eagles are going to be "A team to beat" but I guarantee they will not be THE team to beat. I know New England lost that super bowl, and they're a huge letdown, but Randy Moss signed a 3 year deal, and Randy Moss + Tom Brady is a deadly combo, which can be/is unstoppable. Another point, the patriots went 16-0 in the regular season, so obviously they are the team to beat since they were NOT beat. The patriots did get rid of Asante, Donte, and Gay, but they got Zach Thomas, and their linebacker core is stacked, and I'm guessing they'll get some replacement DB's. Another team to beat will be the Giants. Hot of a big road game streak, and the super bowl, they will be the team to beat because they beat the "unbeatable." The running backs are great, Eli has lost his choke role, the defense is good, and the wide receivers are amazing. As always, the colts could be the team to beat, because, well, Peyton Manning is Peyton Manning.
Philadelphia Eagles will be the team to beat in the 08-09 season.

If the eagles team stays mainly healthy through the 08-09 season they will be the team to beat. because there is a good chance Randy Moss will be joining there offence. Mcnabb has had a full season without injury and will be on the rebound. with the adition to Samuel along with a stuning d-line and Brian Dawkins in the backfield the defence will be without a doubt steller. the only loss the eagles have is Jevon Kearse who didnt have a great year anyway after his knee injury. They are a good team but went throught something every good team goes through a year or two of decline while they regroup. plus they have one of the best coaching staffs who will pull them through.
Jesus is God

I would think that you needed to be put in a ward. Which is why Jesus is God, Because no one says that they are God. I say I am God. Does that mean I am also God? From your reasoning yes I am. To say there was no one else claiming to be God would be a lie because most people were deluded or not so intelligent back then so to say no one else claimed to be God would be a lie. Gods? Mistake on my part but the other rebuttals were not sufficient. You say many miracles but don't state any. I am not, That is what He said, Look it up. Could've given me the source. That was an assertion you made. Saw the quote and I did not get what you said which was implied in the verse. You are forgetting that I AM means Jehovah, Which means God. Okay. If I said I am God. Would I be God? No what makes Jesus different? You did not speak about his miracles about from saying he had many instead of speaking about them individually. God didn't take away sin. He forgives sin. He only forgives the sin of those who repent of their sin and trust in Him. That goes against everyone will be punished. By there sins being forgiven they get away with evil. I don't know what you are trying to say. A vision is no way enough evidence to say something happened. His Words have not passed away. They are found in the Bible. I have a whole other debate on this subject, But if you want to do another one we can. The Bible is the highest followed religion but the trend seems like they are going to lose their spot. Even though they are the most popular religion there is only about 20% of the population following the religion. But if you approach the evidence with an open mind and open heart, I think you might be surprised how God will begin to convince you that He is Who He has revealed Himself to be~in creation, In nature, In His incarnation, And in His Bible. I am still open minded. Remember one contradiction does prove the Bible is not the word of God. As you are surely aware there are many atheists that were once Christians, Either due to contradictions or not basing beliefs on a book that the evidence cannot be tested today to say it is right. Also if you are right and there is no God, I have nothing to lose in being a Christian, But if you are wrong you will spend eternity in a Christless hell. I already knew that. God would see I use reason instead of belief and be merciful. If It isn't then God would be unfair since people are different and different people require different things to change their stances. What if there is a God but it isn't the Christian one? You haven't thought about that one. See you in Islamic Hell.
Jesus is God

I addition to Christs I Am staetments, He otherwise proclaims His deity and asserts divine prerogatives. Saying I Am does not prove your God. Biblical evidence assuming it is true. Jesus still died. God cannot die due the many titles you have given. If Jesus was God then why isn't he all-knowing? You might say he is. I would say Jesus only allowed another 2018 years of sin. If he knew people were still going to sin even after he was going to die how is he all-knowing? From his visionThere is no way a vision is enough evidence to base anything on. I can't say I had a vision that you murdered someone and you will go to jail so why is his vision so special? Heaven and earth will pass away, But my words will not pass awayYes it has. More people believe in Heaven then they do about words from Jesus. More then half of the population are not Christians so his words have passed away for the many who have not heard it. Everything else I do not need to debunk. My premises for why Jesus is not God still stand and the rebuttals should be enough to counter argue the points you made.
Jesus is God

Who but God could devise such a name? A word has no meaning until you give it one. No name is inherently good only subject to the society we live in. If It says Its name was Dog. You would be saying the exact same thing. God would be a Dog and nothing would be different. I tell you the truth, Before Abraham was born, I AMSo it is basically a belief then? What if I said that. Would you believe that I am God? I don't think so. This not proof it is the case. If it was then I am able to breathe in space. reaction to Jesus' deity and try to stone Him for blasphemy (John 8:59)How else would they react when disregarding their Gods? Jesus could've shown more proof of his power. Maybe a card trick. With that most of the people would drop their beliefs and join Jesus because I never heard of a great magician in Jesus's time. But also asserts that He was before the patriarch Abraham, Who had lived and died more than two thousand years before. You are looking to deep into it. Before Abraham was born, I AMThis is in the present. If he said I was then he would talking in the past. Am does not mean he transcends time because how do quantify into words? Am? I don't think so. Jesus is either the Lord, A Liar, Or a LunaticOr just can be a great guy who was mis-informed on how to say humans. The Bible quotes in the end did not help me understand how Jesus is God. If biblical evidence is used at least show me something that specifically says Jesus is God if not something close. I am applies to the present not past present future. Can you clear up am? I do not how you got Jesus is God from the quotes you have given. My arguments:Jesus is not the God because he died. God as far as I know cannot die and is a supreme being. Jesus is also not God due to the mistakes he has made. Lets say Jesus died on the cross for our sins. We are still sinning so he has not stopped out since only I guess removed the one in his era. In the present people are sinning and the only thing Jesus did was give sinners a free pass. That did not solve the problem of sinning if people still sin. Jesus is also not God because if he was why didn't he write the Bible? To me if I was God and I was a human at some point I would write a book and do a card trick to get people believing in me if I was in the same era as Jesus. His ideas did not help and he made mistakes. Dying on the cross on gave humans more time to make mistakes not spread the word of Christ. If it was everyone would be a Christian by now if the dying on the cross was enough reason for anyone to join Christianity. If he did not do it for that reason why did he do it? I can go on more but I think this is enough.
students should not have to stay on campus during lunch

It isn't dumb.They could get raped, beaten, killed, tortured or kidnapped out on the streets. From the start of the school day to the end of it, students are the school's responsibility as opposed to the parents' (and even longer if it's a boarding school or overnight campus) thus the school has to realise that it is far easier to monitor students' safety is they are within the premises and are always viewed upon by members of staff (aside from the toilets for privacy reasons) outside in the big bad world, it is far harder for the school body to maintain safety of students and thus is a necessary precaution.
Lower the legal sex age

"i [sic] dont [sic] see how just because a child cannot legally work or receive child support is relevant to point i [sic] am making." Well, when people have sex, sometimes they get children afterwards. How's an 11 year-old going to support a child? "[A]t no point have i said 11 year old should be having chidren [sic]." If kids have sex, some will have children or contract a disease. Those two things are part of sex; both happen on occasion, even when preventative measures are taken. Moreover, 11 year-old children have trouble taking their damn vitamins, so what makes you think they will be able to use contraceptives correctly each time? Another problem with your contention, is that this eliminates any reasoning behind statutory rape, even some cases of child molestation. Such laws assume that a child cannot consent to sex and therefore should be protected. If we lower the age to 11, there is no reason an adult should not be able to have sex with an 11 year old, since, according to you, that 11 year-old is responsible enough to consent to sex. Last point! "if [sic] you love someone or something then you should be able to show that love through that form, if both people are up for it." Something! What do you mean by something? Moreover, there is a bit of a question whether or not children at that age "are up for it." Now, sexual intercourse is natural; however, how we value it is cultural. Are kids that young going to be ready for the social, biological, or economic costs of sex?
Lower the legal sex age

Im a very open minded person myelf, i dont see how just because a child cannot legally work or receive child support is relevant to point i am making. You may say it is becaue of the consiquences of sexual intercourse but at no point have i said 11 year old should be having chidren. I beleive your point that you cannot imagin doctors telling someone theyhave a sexually transmitted diesease is abit of a varse. if you love someone or something then you should be able to show that love through that form, if both people are up for it.
Lower the legal sex age

I'm a pretty open-minded guy. I have nothing against people wanting to have crazy sex lives, but age 11??? What is that? 6th grade?? Kids at that age don't have the ability to gauge consequences. They can't even legally work, so child support is out the window. I can't even imagine a doctor telling some 11 year-old kid he has the clap or the HIV. This is pretty far off the deep end for me.
Lower the legal sex age

In my opinion the legal age for two people, or maybe three, to have sexual intercourse should be lowered to the ages of 11. i belive this to be acceptable as children are being educated about this by the ages of 5 so they must surely be mature enough to what they are letting themselves into as they have known about it for 6 years now. Some say it should be lowered to 5 as they now know about it from this age but they haven't had the experiences to now what the real reason behind it should be, love.
Aborted babies need health care

if the last thing an aborted baby gets is the abortion are you saying they don't deserve a burial or memorial or to even be cleaned up? we should just leave them to show the world what happens when you DON'T have health care. Lets all remember my opponents whole argument is he has swag and too much of it! and hes completely ignoring the fact that not all babies die when aborted....but hey cant we just leave them there like my opponent said? SOURCE: http://fusionchronicles.files.wordpress.com...
Aborted babies need health care

We are not debating if they deserve to be dead or not! However, the babies have been killed! You used a picture of a chopped up baby as a source. Would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep it healthy? No! It's a waste of money, and that's money you don't have. Your only argument revolves around you being a unicorn, as well as Batman. You must understand that when a baby has been aborted, that is the last thing that should ever happen to it.
Homework is Necessary

Lastly, Homework is a necessary component to keep in schools today because of the direct connection it has with the "real working world" that not many school subjects actually entertain. Think about it; everyone with a job gets homework, No matter how old you are. We all know the age-old saying of practice makes perfect and, In this case, It still holds. Meaning, We need to help develop these skills in our students from as young as possible. With the alternative argument holding true, If our students weren"t taught to handle the pressures of homework in their younger years, They may find developing years significantly harder without this skill already developed significantly, They would have to develop it themselves and without the assistance of parents or teachers (who are there to teach you). Homework also aids child creativity, Allowing them to discover and search for things on their own and produce work in their own way, Promoting resourcefulness, They develop their own methods, And it allows kids to explore themselves and what works for them, And will aid their data collection in years to come.
Homework is Necessary

In Round 2 I'm going to discuss 2) The benefits of homework on the ability to perform, And 3) Why the practicality of homework should appeal to all. As for my first point of discussion, I think the famous saying goes; save the best until last. Firstly, As a precursor, I think when discussing the topic of stress, Homework is one of the minor impacts directly affecting it. My reasoning for this is that for homework students are normally given ample time to complete the assignment and furthermore, Are able to most importantly take it home, Allowing them up to at least 5 hours a night to complete such assignment but also with access to the Internet, Communication with their parents, Their peers and teachers (via email or face-to-face inside or out of school). I think perhaps a more suitable reason for the stress direct to an individual would be poor time management, Not allowing them to factor in necessary activities such as homework, But rather leaving this too late then distressing as to why there is so much to do in such little time. Secondly, As aforementioned, The practicality of homework is so simple, And that the only barrier students create for themselves is poor time management. You're able to take this homework to anyone in your social circle and they will gladly help you, Especially teachers who value students excessively that ask for help when needed. With correct habits and priorities, Children can turn homework into something that they take pride in and reap great rewards from, Not just a burden to carry until the latest possible moment. On the practicality discussion, It is also relevant that students often get lost when it comes to "revision", They don't know what to cover, What structures to produce for themselves. So, Having a teacher set a specific piece of homework can even be a burden released from the student, With them not having to worry about covering the wrong topics. Thirdly, The benefits of homework quantity on student achievement has proven time and time again that it has helped students access higher grades, With the relationship being a positive correlation, Thus one of the main reasons why it has remained in our society for so long. Homework being set from a young age greatly aids children in the preparation for examinations and tests later on in their education, With homework often incorporating essay style writing and homework also provides the ability for students to work together in their own time, Developing team building and interaction skills towards something that matters; the cultivation of themselves - the topic I will discuss next round.
Homework is Necessary

Thank you to Osborne for being my opponent in this debate. If you have any inquiries please ask me. In my opening statement I said I would address: 1)Stress 2)Co-curricular activities are Important Most people think stress is absolutely unharmful, Especially over a little thing like homework. Well I"m here to prove you wrong. I bet you didn"t know that 26 percent of kids each year drop out of school because of stress! Homework can be unbelievably stressful if you have too much of it. You could feel pressured to finish all your homework, Or force yourself to finish everything just to feel good about yourself. Homework also leads to anxiety, Negativity and tiredness.
Homework is Necessary

An activity like homework shouldn't be defined as an 'issue' but rather as a circumstance, And one for development. It is of even more topical importance now than ever, Due to the distractions available to kids today. Of course, Extra-Curricular activities are key for development but how many hours will actually be spent on such activities compared to time on brain-numbing devices, If the time homework takes was taken away. I hope we can both agree homework can be defined as "schoolwork that a pupil is required to do at home. " with the keyword being 'required' (an implication being that it is set by the teacher. I wish to address: 1) The life skills children gain from Homework that become core. 2) The benefits of homework on the ability to perform. 3) Why the practicality of homework should appeal to all.