BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical Marijuana

"Medical marijuana has serious side effects, although many argue it can stifle pain, I argue pain is healthy although it may not feel like it because pain relieves body stress." No citation or source showing why pain is necessarily good. "my argument is that legalizing the medical use of marijuana allows this deadly substance to be obtained by normal people, exposing them to the harmful effects of this deadly poison" First, people can already obtain this drug easily, albeit illegally. And again no source or citation for "harmful effects" caused by marijuana. "plus this drug doesn't realy do anything, all it does is relieve pain temoporaily and then send you into a state of depression." Again with no sources or citations but no matter. Here I will adequately show the positive effects medical marijuana. Smoke The most obvious harmful effect that I can see from medical marijuana is the damage done to one's lungs when smoking the drug. This is of course a fair concern however, one can ingest marijuana in a number of different ways, which do not significantly damage the lungs. Vaporizer A vaporizer uses gentle heat instead of a flame to let you inhale the ingredients. As the plant is not actually burned, smoke is not released and you can cut out the damage to your lungs that you often incur when smoking a joint.http://www.marijuanavaporizers.info... Saltivex Saltivex is a mouth spray developed by GW Pharmaceuticals to help combat the symptoms of multiple sclerosis. As with the vaporizer there is no smoke being inhaled by the user. http://en.wikipedia.org... Diseases Cancer Cannabis can be used to relieve nausea for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Chemotherapy treatment kills cancer cells but also kills healthy cells which leave patients incredibly nauseated. http://www.ukcia.org... Pain Cannabis can also be used to effectively treat anti-inflammatory, anti-spasmodic, neuroprotective, anti-oxidant, and direct pain. Medical cannabis is also more effective than opioids in that opioids can become severely addictive leaving terrible withdrawal symptoms. http://www.letfreedomgrow.com... AIDS Medical cannabis can help alleviate suffering brought on by AIDS by increasing appetite to combat weight loss brought on by the disease. http://www.marijuanalibrary.org...
Medical Marijuana

Medical marijuana has serious side effects, although many argue it can stifle pain, I argue pain is healthy although it may not feel like it because pain relieves body stress. Marijuana is infamous for being detrimental to a person. Now I know you are arguing medical marijuana my argument is that legalizing the medical use of marijuana allows this deadly substance to be obtained by normal people, exposing them to the harmful effects of this deadly poison, plus this drug doesn't realy do anything, all it does is relieve pain temoporaily and then send you into a state of depression.
Evolution vs Creation

First of all you are using "Wikipedia" as a source. That is probably the worst possible thing to do. Do you realize that anyone who signed up for a free account can change anything they want on any paper on the website? Stephen Gould describes facts as, "He describes fact in science as meaning data," Here is the definition of a scientific fact used by the ever untrustworthy Wikipedia, "Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means)." Which in fact contradicts the idea that evolution is fact. You can"t measure evolution, you can"t repeat it, and you can"t see it. Here is a scientific definition of a theory by a trusted website, WWW.dictionary.com, "contemplation or speculation." Here is the sites definition for scientific fact, "any observation that has been REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted." In this definition you see that a fact must be repeatable, and observable. You can"t pull your information from Wikipedia. In college, if we put Wikipedia as a source for one of our papers, we would get in trouble. Wikipedia is probably the most untrusted sight to glean information from. It has obviously done its work on you. Anyways there is your argument in a nutshell. You are the instigator, but you have brought no evidence to the table. To simply say that Wikipedia says so, does not mean it is so. I want evidence. As the instigator it is you job to present me with evidence, as I defend the fact that both origin theories are in fact theory.
Evolution vs Creation

First of all I am assuming that you don"t involve yourself in science often. Unfortunately you are wrong. I am a creationist. But that doesn"t matter at all right now. Even to the standards of an educated evolutionist you are wrong. First of all a "Scientific Theory" not backed up by plenty of evidence. That"s why they call it a theory. Easy as that. But let"s get deeper. According to the scientific method, a theory becomes fact when you can measure, repeat, and observe. Seeing that you can do none of those things to creation or evolution, they are both theories. In your second sentence you state that not only is evolution a fact, but it"s a theory. That is impossible. You cannot be both. If the evolution is backed by the fossil record, and DNA, give me an example. You can literally post an entire essay here, use the space. I"m not using the space because your entire paragraph was erroneous. You need to rethink your argument thesis. Stop ranting, and get to the beef.
Fortnite is retarded

Fortnite is a sh! Tty excuse of a battle royale game. Only white disabled niggers, Black niggers, Asians, Natives, Mexicans, Arabs, Indians, And mixies play it. It's also overrated as all hell. Go play PUBG instead. I wish my future opponent good luck. Also, Here's my other debate because I still need someone to debate this with me: http://www. Debate. Org/debates/There-should-be-only-one-black-family-per-neighborhood/1/
Fortnite is retarded

Despite this obvious bait of a post, I wanted to reply to it. First off, I'm not someone who's incredibly experienced with Fortnite. I've probably played a game a few times, And I'd probably put my play time at around 1-2 hours. Enough about me, Onto my argument. In my opinion, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG) caters to a different audience than Fortnite. PUBG is a more demanding game, With minimum PC requirements of 8 GB of RAM, With a recommended 16 GB(1), According to its page on Steam. According to Epic Games' FAQ for Fortnite, The game recommends 8 GB of RAM(2), And a minimum graphics card that PC Gamer called "Paltry. " (3) This does not make it a better or worse game, But it makes it more accessible to a more casual crowd. Fortnite is also free to play, Which makes it even more accessible. Fortnite is often most people's introduction to the battle royale genre, Due to its subscription-based economic system. The game that's "better" depends on the person. Casual gamers are going to have a harder time getting into PUBG, But Fortnite is more open to casual gamers. Is Fortnite overrated? No. Fortnite's construction is an interesting concept, And the controls are tight. When I lose, I lost because the other person had better mechanics, Not because of some BS mechanics. Of course, There have been OP weapons, But Epic Games has been pretty good about listening to community feedback and acting accordingly. Now, For the part that everyone thought I was just going to overlook. The obvious race-baiting. After looking at your other post, Where you specifically tear into African Americans, Saying they "do nothing but commit crime, Smoke weed, Join gangs. " (4) From looking at your profile, You claim to be 110 years old, And every stance you take on issues has a comment with the n-word in it. I'll take a wager and say that you aren't 110, Based on your username being a call to the creator of the Cool Cat character, Who became a meme due to his unprofessional attitude. My guess is that you're a young kid, Who came onto debate. Org looking to be edgier than the iron throne. If you would like to debate video games with me, I would enjoy having a chat with you. But, If you wish to be edgy and racist, Then I have nothing to say to you. Works Cited: (1) https://store. Steampowered. Com/app/578080/PLAYERUNKNOWNS_BATTLEGROUNDS/ (2) https://www. Epicgames. Com/fortnite/en-US/faq (3) https://www. Pcgamer. Com/pubg-vs-fortnite/ (4) http://www. Debate. Org/debates/There-should-be-only-one-black-family-per-neighborhood/1/
Gay Marriage

Hey it's not your fault there are homosexuals. It's the devils fault. I'm not hating, I'm just saying its wrong. You don't understand because your influenced by the devil. One day you'll understand that it's wrong, but once again it's not your fault. It's the devils fault. Your are blinded my sister. God didn't create it, he created love which is true. But it was corrupted into homosexuality. I not anybody important but guess what god is. The bible doesn't specifically talk about homosexuality but its part of today's corrupted world. The world is becoming more and more corrupted. Ya more people statistically say that being gay is not bad but like I said people are looking away from god. How would you know we interpret the bible wrong, you don't have insight so you wouldn't understand. The bible isn't some kind of leg to stand on. IT'S THE WORD OF GOD.
Gay Marriage

God gave us free will, but not to spread hate like you do. And how would you know that God doesn't approve? You don't. It's the same as your belief in God. My belief is, that if there is a God, he loves every single one of his children, especially when they're goodhearted people. Your faith in God can be compared to my faith in the possibility of a God that loves everyone. Homosexuality is caused by corruption? Oh, please. God created it, just as He created your ability to love someone of the same gender. The fact that I am attracted to, and in love with a female doesn't mean I'm corrupt, it doesn't mean I grew up in a bad home, and it certainly doesn't mean that I'm going to hell. Love in any form is right, and cannot be judged. I'm sorry to say it like this, but who the f*ckdo you think you are to tell me that my fiancee and I shouldn't be able to get married, have kids, and grow old and happy together? And, even if you think that homosexuality is wrong, which you honestly have every single right to have your own opinion, how is it fair to let the opinion of the minority (homophobic a$$holes) affect the lives of the majority (homosexuals/people who support homosexuals)? Do you realize that, statistically, more people are for gay rights than against? And another question, how would my marriage affect yours? Honestly, just TRY to think of ONE valid reason to actually be against Gay marriage besides the fact that YOU interpreted the Bible to make it say that. (By the way, the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality being wrong. Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. The only reason people use the Bible to back up their bigotry is because they interpreted it completely wrong, and just want some kind of leg to stand on.)
Gay Marriage

You a re very wrong my sister. He doesn't like the idea but he allows it because he gave us free will. Which is giving us the decision to choose what we want to do. How would you know god approves. Your a atheist. You right just because you believe that not a automatic free pass to heaven. We have to repent for your sins which I do every night before I go to sleep. I'm sorry to say this but: YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT!! God didn't create homosexuality. It's corruption in the world which lead to homosexuality.
Gay Marriage

I sound like the devil because I'm pro-civil rights and pro-tolerance? I sound like the devil because I am for loving everyone equally, and not discriminating? Do you know who is pro-tolerance and loves everybody? Surely not the devil, but your God. God doesn't think homosexuality is wrong, or he wouldn't have allowed it to happen in the first place. He wouldn't have given men the ability to love another man, or a woman to love another woman. You're absolutely right, you do not have the right to judge my lifestyle, but isn't that exactly what you're doing by telling me it's wrong and God doesn't approve? That sounds pretty damn judgmental to me. The only people God judges are the people who go against him, and that is exactly what I'm NOT doing. I'm not going around preaching his word exactly, but I'm preaching tolerance and love and equality, which is what he wants; for everyone to be treated equal and just. I believe that, if there is a God (and if he returns), he will personally shake hands with every homosexual person in the world, and tell them that he loves them and supports them completely. Because he does. You may think that, just because you believe in God, you're automatically granted a free pass into Heaven, but I disagree. Discrimination in any form is wrong, and your God knows that it is, I can promise you that.
Gay Marriage

Love is love, and homophobia is uncalled for. It's discrimination based on something that absolutely cannot be changed, and it's no different than discriminating against someone based on the color of their skin. Who are you to tell me who I can and cannot marry? Will it honestly affect your marriage or even your life in any possible way? No. It will only affect me and the person I marry. Saying that it should be wrong because "God" doesn't approve, and gays can't reproduce? If there is a God, which I don't believe there is, he loves every single one of his children, no matter what. Also, with the overpopulation nowadays, maybe homosexuality is part of evolution to prevent the world from becoming too overpopulated. So, your "no reproduction" theory doesn't really make sense. Especially because there are many people who don't want kids, or are sterile, or want to get married later in life when they're too old to have children. Should they be denied happiness? It's going to happen; sooner or later everyone who is young and pro-gay is going to grow up and take over the offices, and before you know it, all of the states will have legalized same-sex marriage. It's bound to happen, there isn't anything anyone can do anymore. You have absolutely no right to judge anyone's lifestyle. Don't be a bigot, there isn't enough room for you around here anymore.
New characters for Smash Bros

Of course, I will be examining it. Rebuttal:Buzz's move set; "Wrist Laser: Buzz uses the B button to shoot lasers from his wrist. Holding down on the B button further charges the laser to produce a noob tube effect, aka enormous energy blast, similar to Nintendo’s Samus. " So this move is similar to Samus's Neutral B? Just for clarification, how big is the "noob tube" blast? "Karate Chop: Buzz uses the C-Stick to Karate Chop opponents for high damage. " How high is the damage? Just wanting to clarify. "Force Field: Buzz uses his utility belt to create a Magneto type force field that blocks projectiles. " So he just creates a shield? This requires elaboration. What exactly does the shield do? "Rocket Boost: Buzz Lightyear extends his wings and uses his jet pack to temporary extend his jump. " So this is basically the Rocket Jet item? Just for clarification, how high can the rocket boost go? "Infinity & Beyond: Buzz Lightyear uses his wrist communicator to call in star fighters from Star Command. These ships then blast Buzz’s opponents with anti-matter weapons and neutron bombs, sending them into outerspace. Meanwhile the screen goes black and Buzz’s strikes a hero pose in his glow in the dark suit, making him look cool. " Considering this is a Final Smash, I guess this is alright. But how exactly would this work? Is it like Captain Falcon's Final Smash? Does Star Command just bombard the stage? Explanation:"The cool factor alone makes Buzz the obvious choice. " So just because he's "cool", he should be in Smash Bros? Well, if that's the case, then. .. why not everybody else? "Cool" is different for a lot of people. I personally think Phoenix Wright is awesome, and I'm not alone with that opinion. So yeah. I feel like being "cool" isn't a sufficient reason for Buzz Lightyear specifically. Anyone can say "I want {insert any character} in this game because they're cool/awesome/cute etc. " So why Buzz Lightyear specifically? My character has as good of a reason as Con's character has. Closing Thoughts:I personally found Con's move set a bit vague. Hopefully my opponent can clarify a bit of things in his next round. Also, his reason is one that anyone could use. But why Buzz Lightyear specifically? I would like Con to answer that question. And he can't respond with "He's cool", since it would be going into a circular argument. So, Why Buzz Lightyear specifically?
New characters for Smash Bros

Buzz Lightyear’s special moves set:Neutral Special: Wrist Laser: Buzz uses the B button to shoot lasers from his wrist. Holding down on the B button further charges the laser to produce a noob tube effect, aka enormous energy blast, similar to Nintendo’s Samus. Side Special: Karate Chop; Buzz uses the C-Stick to Karate Chop opponents for high damage. This move is modeled off of Roy and Marth’s sword attack, and Lightyear’s karate chop that famously beat back renegade toys in Toy Story 1.Down special: Force Field; Buzz uses his utility belt to create a Magneto type force field that blocks projectiles. This move is based on the utility belt worn by Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story 2. Up Special: Rocket Boost; Buzz Lightyear extends his wings and uses his jet pack to temporary extend his jump.Final Smash:Infinity & Beyond: Buzz Lightyear uses his wrist communicator to call in star fighters from Star Command. These ships then blast Buzz’s opponents with anti-matter weapons and neutron bombs, sending them into outerspace. Meanwhile the screen goes black and Buzz’s strikes a hero pose in his glow in the dark suit, making him look cool. Why Buzz Lightyear?Buzz Lightyear is the super cool, super recognizable main character from Toy Story 1, 2, and 3. He’s world famous, has his own TV shows and games, and is already modeled for 3D. In addition, Buzz can fly, duck, dodge, and dive, can speak Spanish, taunt with Tim Allen’s voice, shoot lasers, and karate chop oppenents for high damage and look cool doing it. The cool factor alone makes Buzz the obvious choice.
New characters for Smash Bros

I thank my opponnt for accepting. Now, let's delve into what Phoenix Wright's moves would be.Argument:Neutral Special: Objection; Phoenix Wright's signature thing. Using his side special, and over time (1 stage per 10 seconds), charges up Objection, up to 10 stages. At stage 1, it'll only do 5% damage. At each stage, the move's power increases by 2%. At the maximum 10th stage, Phoenix Wright will glow white, letting the player know his Objection is at the maximum stage, and when used, it does 25% damage, and great launch power. Unleashing it will cause an Objection speech bubble to appear in front of him.Side Special: Evidence Grab; Phoenix Wright catches an incoming projectile. Each projectile will increase Objection by 1 stage. The actual move is half the duration of Villager's Pocket, though. You'll have to time it properly. When Objection is at stage 10, this move fails, with Phoenix letting the player know he has "enough evidence".Down special: Magatama Reflect; Phoenix Wright uses his Magatama to create a barrier right in front of him that reflects projectiles. Phoenix can still be attacked and grabbed through the shield.Up Special: Magatama Leap; Phoenix Wright creates a platform underneath him, and jumps up.Final Smash:Psyche Lock: Phoenix Wright creates 5 Psyche Locks on the stage. After 5 seconds, the top left lock breaks, dealing 20% damage to players in range. Then, the top right lock breaks, dealing 20%. Then, bottom left, then bottom right, and finally the one in the center, which the center one does 30% in twice the radius, with powerful launch potential.Why Phoenix?Phoenix was a character in Ultimate Marvel vs CapCom 3, so he knows how to fight. He was also given a moveset in the fan game Smash Bros Crusade. So why not let him get a fresh start in an official Smash Bros game?I wonder what my opponent will say when he cross examines my ideas in his round 2...
New characters for Smash Bros

This is a debate for new characters to add to Super Smash Bros.Rules:1. For this debate, characters from a cartoon is allowed.2. You must give a valid move set for your character (One that's canon to their video game/TV show/movie. So no Teletubbies with rocket launchers).3. Characters originating from the Internet, or a brand is invalid.4. Your move set must contain 4 special moves, and a Final Smash.5. You must also give a reason for why you chose that character.6. Forfeitng a round will result in a conduct loss. Forfeiting all rounds is an instant defeat. Make sure you're willing to finish this debate.Voting Rules:Argument points will be given to whoever had the better character, and the better explanation.Conduct points will be given to whoever didn't insult their opponent, or forfeited a round (You're not required to give conduct, however).Spelling & Grammar is self explanatory; whoever's arguments were easier to read (Optional).My character this time is Phoenix Wright from the Ace Attorney video game series.
Your satan is a myth

Con’s interesting polytheist rabbit trail “The second being Messiah likened to the bronze (fiery) serpent in Numbers 21:5-9 that's "lifted up" as a sort of banner or ensign.” “These men are coming before the prophets with many idols in their hearts asking for the Word of YHWH. HE says that He will answer them according to their many idols and that when the prophets are deceived, it's He that deceives them! Our Maker gives the lie to those who make Him their enemy.” Ad hoc rationalizations to explain the obvious Hebrew Polytheism. It would make an interesting debate that topic. Dropped arguments Con did not refute my argument that satan is not a myth from the Old Testament but rather a myth introduced in the New Testament. All attributes attributed to Satan are present in the NT but absent (at best references have the exact opposite traits) in the Old. Any references to Satan as a proper noun in the OT are metaphorical and Con asserted they are references to men and certainly not a single being or myth. The definition of myth as an allegory or metaphor is not common and can not be reasonably applied within the context of this debate. Con restricted me to the Old Testament definition of Satan but the only myth he could come up with is a direct reference from the New Testament modern definition that I provided. There is a polytheistic element of evil gods in the OT as opposed to a good vs evil dichotomy as presented in the NT. There is no dualistic light vs dark or God vs Satan until the NT. Con argued my case We both agree that there was no literal being called Satan when using the Hebrew word for adversary in The Old Testament. This is a concession that there is no myth of Satan in the Old Testament which was the focus of the resolution he presented in round 1. Con restricted me to the Old Testament definition of Satan but cannot connect the Old Testament to the modern Myth. Irrelevant arguments Con conceded Lucifer is not a reference to Satan in the Old Testament. He suggested that The Leviathan or The Beast may be a references to A being called Satan without providing anything more than speculation without a link in the bible. He also agreed that these may likely be references to mankind and not an evil being myth. - Con has not refuted my case. For the most part he agreed with me and was unable to produce a Satan Myth from the Old Testament. There is clearly no evil being called Satan in the OT so there is definitely no myth of Satan until the New Testament.