BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
weed

Since I will get the final argument, I shall allow my opponent to go first and present their case in R2. I do want to clarify for the voters. The topic is only "weed" however, based on the previous debate [1] that my opponent referenced and their statements on "it should not be illegal" it is reasonable to conclude that the debate is about the legality of recreational marijuana use. I await my opponent's argument. [1] . http://www.debate.org...
weed

sorry I wass gone for last round if you like i can chaling you to a nother one later it late here and time is low and I feel like one round wont cap this all in. 1st mediton does read anthing the monks have on it, it to chang you vewe of the would and I have shown evidence but if I must I will show more if you accccept a round 2 of of sort later. 2cnd the usa govermint hads weed as a levil 1 drug listid as more dangeris then cocain, a drug that pp will sell there live to gite more of or kill for. this is commin info for pp that evin bother to pay attanchin to anything drug relatid and from my vew of some of you debate I see you have a intrest in it wather or not you use or a family abuse one whay or a nother you seem to have some care nagitive or not. so then you have there over three decade smear campain on the drug. and miss I now errr my self includid ahhh 5 pepole that smoke and drive. none of them have been in a acident in there lives i just got done smoking with my dad in his car driving down to the Detrit and he had no problime if anything he wass more aware of thing. now 1 otr 2 pp is nothing for a test you need more but for crying out lode have or more of my frind smoke and drive that is good avidence it show what a normile smoker can do if one or two had insidence then mabey you would have something in my old debat with that troll I dropt a few links read them it 5 am now and i am falling a sleep other whys i would do it my self for you but i not evin going to spell check this sorry. allso the gove tends to give unusuling hiigh amount of thc in the test drug higher then normorll agin i think it in thos link in my old one. if you wont to do a nother with me later just saY SO if that the case i will post them in round one plus the ones frome here for the other plus a brife recew of this. allso some time the test drug can be umm icant spell that word so um you now win you eat or swalowe somthing orile and that give pp a diffrint high then what some or ised to. aggin the merey thing is short term and gos away whin you are not high and allso can vering for some peple weed is not a drug it has the same things in it as the humion boding agine i can go further on this later if you wish. driving is some what like playing a video game by the whay sand if you say no to that then think of this on a game you ave a controler andascreen right? a car you aver a streering weel and you brake and gass and the shifter pluse the emergincuung break. oh yah and a wind sheald. pot head tend to be beeter gamers cos of somthing to do with there refelix and timeing in game or somthing agin I can go deeper in to this allso if we do go on i try to curb my crapping speeling but for now i need sleep so good night I hop to read in you post that you wish to carig this on.
weed

I have a few things to bring up. 1) My opponent dismisses any ". gov" sources. This is an Ad Hominem fallacy against the source, it would be like me rejecting any of his sources because the are Pro-marijuana. Regardless of the what their motives may be (which no evidence was presented regardless), the science stated in them is accurate. If my opponent wishes to argue that they are not, they still have 2 rounds to do so. 2) My opponent attempts to argue the definition, however I've already showed that it fits the definition by his definition. He also fails to present any solid argument against the dictionary. He also does not present any support for the claim that meditations causes a change in conscious. MRI results show only minimal change and in parts of the brain that do not mark an actual change in consciousness that drugs do [1][2]. My opponent does present links that show that long term meditation can cause a physical difference in the brain, but a long term physical difference is not the same as a conscious change after a single use. 3) My opponent claims that I took him out of context. He claimed that ". .. thes attack from pepole becuse the resine most have these attacks are subconsciously afraid of bing caught and jailed for possession. .. " however, this claim was never made in his R2. 4) I must apologize, when my opponent said "meditatoun" in their R2, I thought they meant "medication. " This is the importance of proper spelling, to avoid confusion. However, this clarification does not change the facts presented that Marijuana harms one's reasoning and memory, it does not strengthen it like my opponent says. 5) Marijuana and the Heart. My opponent claims that the heart rate change is only the same as a 30 minute walk. However, that is completely ignoring the issue at hand. It compounds on to anything they do. Meaning if they get hungry and decide to walk down to 7-11, their heart rate will be 20-50% [3] higher than if they hadn't. This can raise the heart rate over 150 bpm, which can be stressful on the heart and prolonged exposure can weaken the heart. 6) My opponent presents anecdotal evidence about their driving. Something that cannot be confirmed, and even if it could, it is not evidence of anything (just like saying I can drive perfectly fine while drunk does not mean that alcohol does not impair judgement). Studies on all levels (from scientific studies, to driving simulations, to traffic fatality rates) show that marijuana has a negative effect on driving skills [4]. If we choose to believe my opponent's unsupported claim, they are nothing more than an anomaly and outlier, not even close to the rule. [1] . http://multiply.com... [2] . http://www.gophoto.it... [3] . http://www.cannabismd.net... [4] . http://adai.washington.edu...
weed

thanks for the links, tho I wont bother with the .gov links. the government keep running there fear campaigns weed dos not cuss depression ether most use for weed are qouit a few but the one a the few that a lot of my friends use it for are stress relatid ishuse and some me included use it for whin they became depressed allso the def for drug only wins 2 out of three by your use of these def meaning the one change of thout is that meditation used by the monk is a typ of drug cens long term meditation is meant to bring you closer to god and And I repeat these if I could it is to help you change you psyche so that you may git rid of behaver that are bad for you like obsession over worldly goods. juist look at this Buddha link (!) (1 ) http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.adolphus.nl... so by what you sad medition is a drug right? Oh yay my panic attack thing you tride to use aginst me smart tack what I say out of context to cunfuse the reders I sad if it were legil it would remove alot of thes attack from pepole becuse the resine most have these attacks are subconsciously afraid of bing caught and jailed for possession and medical and hydro grade weeds, now reggy don't normally cause these attacks if you not already porn to the attack you self. pleas don't tack my stuff out of context. now the accelerated heart rate you quoted I ain't going to ague that but i ask going to ague this if you can walk for 30 minuets no problem then you can smoke weed, because the increase heart rate is the same as if you went for a 30 minute walk. okay the short team memory loss can be a good thing i watched a video a few years back cant remember the name of it at the moment but is show and talk about how this may be the resin most artist day the can think better on weed and help them think better because the present isn't clouding you mind just the here and now. I drive better on weed also less tens less nerves and I can react better and faster to some thing because whine I am high time feels slower sometimes allowing me more tim then normal to react to thing tho this only happens whine i perceive danger but cents I am more forces also I tend not to miss anything any way.
weed

My opponent's argument can be summed up in three points, 1) not a drug, 2) medication, and 3) good for the mind. 1) Marijuana is a drug. My opponent provides an interesting definition of "drug. " While I do reject my opponent's definition, it is important to know that regardless, my opponent contradicts himself in the next paragraph when he admits that there is at least one bad effect of it, panic attacks. However, I propose referring to WM for a real definition. Drug [1] - "something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness. " Since my opponent has already admitted that there is a change in consciousness, this definition also shows that it is a drug. 2) Medication and health Marijuana can be used as medicine, as can snake venom, radiation, or nearly any other substance. This does not mean that any of them are safe for general private consumption. Let us go over the health issues associated with Marijuara. First, in regards to how THC interacts with the body, this meta-source should suffice [2]. The health risks in short term range from, impaired memory and judgement, to reduced reaction time, to accelerated heart rates [3]. And the long term includes dependency, lung damage, depression (as well as a number of other disorders), weakened immune system, and decreased cognitive ability [3][4][5]. As with any medicine, it is only beneficial when used properly. And as with any medication, the public has shown time and time again, that they cannot accurately and safely self-medicate. 3) Effects on the mind This can actually trace back to the last round. The effects on memory, and long term effects of social disorders and impacts on cognitive skills shows that it does not yield a net positive. While it does cause one to "think differently" that does not equate to a positive or something good. I shall pass this back to my opponent to address these points. Thank you, [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.debate.org... [3] . http://www.drugabuse.gov... [4] . http://www.livestrong.com... [5] . http://www.drugabuse.gov...
Big Bang Theory

Well there are three problems with your opening argument... >>"How can all matter came from an explosion that occurred from something that is a square centimeter." This is not true. We have no idea how big the mass of the universe was prior to the big bang. However, it is estimated that the mass of our sun would have been compacted to a size several miles across. Considering we have the technology to understand the physics involved up to BILLIONTHS of a second following this phase, it's not so far fetched at all. >>"And if this is true and the universe is still expanding, how do constellations still in perfect form for thousands of years. Wouldn't they be expanding as well?" There's the slight problem of humans only being around for thousands of years out of the almost 14 BILLION years the universe has been around. Recorded human history spans only about 6 thousand years. That's only 4 x 10^-7 percent of the time the universe has been expanding. That's 1 TEN MILLIONTH of 1 percent. Small wonder we haven't observed much change. There are several reasons I believe the big bang model, most of which are rooted in fairly elementary astrophysics. 1. It was proved in 1924 that the universe is expanding. Elementary measurements of the red-shift in light coming from distant galaxies proves they are moving away from us. The big bang easily provides the energy for this movement of the galaxies. 2. Cosmic background radiation (CBR) provides evidence of the nature of matter immediately following the big bang. This was discovered in 1964 in Holmdel, NJ at the Bell Laboratories with their radio telescope. CBR is the radiation that escapes a group of extremely hot atoms as they begin to congeal, much as happened in the formation of matter after the big bang. 3. We can study the nature of matter as it was in the big bang inside particle accelerators. This study corresponds to what we observe in nature, giving us little doubt that the beginning of our universe was very similar to the collisions in a particle accelerator. Just a slight overview, but three completely different arguments of why the big bang is a extraordinarily probable cosmic event. This does beg the question however, if the big bang did not occur, what did?
It is should be illegal for women to have a miscarriage

I Pro will argue that it should be illegal for women to have a miscarriage while my opponent Con will argue that it should be legal for women to miscarry. Structure: R1: Acceptance R2 - R4: Arguments with or without rebuttals R5: Conclusion Rules: 18+, min of 3 completed debates, ranked higher than me (if you can accept you may accept), also no forfeits Good luck Con!
It is should be illegal for women to have a miscarriage

My opponent appears to have accepted this debate because he thinks that I have made a typing error or thinks I don't know what a miscarriage is. A miscarriage is the birth of a fetus before it can survive independently. I'll first argue why abortion should be illegal, and then why miscarriages should be illegal. An abortion is the deliberate ending of a human pregnancy. It is a scientific fact that a human fetus is human life. Even if you think it is not a person yet, it still holds value because it will develop into a human being. If a pregnant woman's baby was killed by someone she and everyone probably would want the killer to be punished because society values human life. The only time when a fetus is regarded as worthless is when a mother decides she doesn't want a baby however on what grounds can a mother alone decide a fetus's worth? Feminists will say a woman has the right to do whatever she likes with her body BUT a fetus is not part of her body, it is inside her body, and is in fact an individual. Once a baby comes out of a womb killing it is murder. Surely then killing it before is also murder. If it is okay to kill an unborn baby, and scientists can determine whether it is a boy or girl, is it right to kill it if you don't want to have a boy? Or what if scientists knew whether it would be born gay, and you want a straight child? Killing a fetus for whatever reason is wrong, and should be discouraged through law. From the moment of conception, the fetus is no longer a part of a woman, and should not be extracted like a tooth. A woman should be responsible for protecting it. The problem is many women take drastic measures to have a miscarriage and avoid having an illegal abortion e.g. they may "accidentally" fall down stairs, stay in abusive relationships, not wear their seat belt. By making miscarriage illegal less women will be reckless, and babies will be healthier as women will minimize their chance of having a miscarriage via maintaining a healthy weight, treating STD's, avoid smoking and drugs during pregnancy. You may think for a woman to have a miscarriage is nothing short of a tragedy however feminists will actually pay someone to abort their child, see source: "the pregnant girl paid a man $150 to beat her in hopes of prompting a miscarriage" [1]. She then expresses her hate toward men like all feminists do, by saying "after her boyfriend threatened a break up if she didn't get rid of the child." This prompted Utah legislators to pass a law. Something should be done to prevent this reckless and unacceptable behavior. What is the point of having abortion laws which women can break easily and get away with by simply claiming "it was an accident, I didn't know I was pregnant until 3 months later". A lot of women don't know they are pregnant until many months pass, and continue to do things which harm their baby. Making miscarriages illegal would encourage women to value the health of babies and their own health. What is wrong with that? sources: [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Homosexual love is as legitimate as heterosexual love.

It is not that law that decides whether or not homosexual love is legitimate, it merely decides whether or not it's going to acknowledge it as such. And a woman recieves no pleasure while giving a man oral sex, though a man may think so highly of his genitals that he assumes she does. It is only the man recieving and the woman performing (unless they are in the 69 position, but that's a different circumstance). And the fact that a heterosexual couple can reproduce has nothing to do with the legitimacy of their love. A heterosexual couple that does not love one another at all can just as easily reproduce and raise a family. Besides, to a homosexual couple, one's partner *is* their family.
Homosexual love is as legitimate as heterosexual love.

I assume that by this you mean that, because homosexuals can be at both the giving and recieving end of sex, their physical expression of love is not equal to that of heterosexuals. However, this is also true for people in heterosexal relationships. A woman can either be on the recieving end during vaginal sex with a man, or she can be on the giving end when giving him oral sex. So how does this make homosexual love less legitimate? Surely the spiritual love that bonds two people together transcends that of physical love. Yes, physical love is a beautiful expression of romantic love, but it can only enhance it, not diminish it. And with each person's expression of love being unique, how can one be superior to another?
Homosexual love is as legitimate as heterosexual love.

First, allow me to specify what kind of love I'm talking about so that no one comes at me with the "love comes in different forms" argument. The kind of love I'm talking about, romantic love, is a strong, long-lasting bond between two people, reenforced by a romantic attraction. It is the kind of love you see in marriages and other such long-term relationships or commitments. My assertion is that this love is legitimate in all forms, even between two people of the same sex.
The old novelists are greater than the new novelists

Your argument seems to be based mainly on emotional bias rather than factual evidence, meaning the weight of the rhetoric exceeds the logic of your argument. Furthermore, while many classic novels are remembered and loved by many, others, in my opinion, have lost some of their value, as they can be lost in translation, or the issues they discuss might no longer be relevant, and more modern novels can better connect to people of this day and age through the use of terms and setting that are more familiar to them. Sure, a good opposing argument could be that several stories of today are mere repeats of what has been already done, but then you would fail to understand that several bring new ideas to the table that can better relate to those who are reading it, even discussing modern issues or asking the question, "What if a past issue had happened differently?" Therefore, I believe that modern novels, in many cases, can be more powerful and, therefore, better than old ones. However, this is not always the case; some favorites of mine are, admittedly, classics. But I'm talking about the majority of cases here.
An online debate is not as fun as a in person rapid fire debate.

Online debates are the bomb diggidy dude. Reasons Why: 1. I can look you in the eye (or at least your profile's (if it has eyes)) 2. I can be quickwitted online. I write my counter arguements fast every time. OH and you can set the time limits to match that of an actual online debate if you so choose. 3. I can step on your case's throat and say 'ha' any time I want so there HAHAHAHAHA (creepy evil laugh) 4. You can use any extra time in a debate to do research and improve your case mid-debate. Making it more of a challenge and therefore more fun. 5. Trust me, I don't have to see you to know that I'm making you uncomfortable. ;) 6. You can question the crap out of your opponent on the comments page if you want. 7. An online debate is just plain better in every way you can imagine. 8. Just think, every time you debate online you see how they always know how to answer your attacks, know your train to thought and kick your case into the ground. That's why online so pones rapid-fire any time, any where. see See SEe SEE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
An online debate is not as fun as a in person rapid fire debate.

On this site the have at least 5 minuets to argue, that's way to much time. In a in person debate you can see if you have made them uncomfortable, and you or your team can pounce, that's the way it works with a rapid fire. you can attack them until they are almost on the ground they are so sunken into their seats and than drive the nail in the coffin and they try to defend, which you cut down.
An online debate is not as fun as a in person rapid fire debate.

1. You wouldn't intimidate me or any other worthy debater 2. Screw those non-representing stupid idiots in England. Their party chooses the candidates and not the people so they're non-freakin-representational idiots!!! 3. Denny Crane my rear end. He loses any debate by professional debate standards for all the crap he pulls. 4. Doesn't matter. It's easier in person for both debaters and therefore nullifies your entire point. so by your standards 'HA' 5. Point made, but still you discomfort people and I know it when it happens. For example. I'm not discomforting you right now. I don't know how I know, I just notice that kind of thing and most people do. 6. Clueless people need to get clued in or leave. And as to the secondary questioning, not necessarily 7. My computer doesn't stream videos so your debate is just text to me 8. I'm referring to the ability of most debaters to anticipate attacks and pre-prepare for them. making debates more interesting 9. Look, your whole mumbling thing is pointless. Also you say ";" by saying the word semi-colon or at least that's how my computer says it when I tell it to read my text back to me. Oh and hoo-da-hey sounds funny when you use the computer to say it. 10. It's just a different shape of glass so it changes nothing for the environment. 11. Well what if there's nobody around to debate with live. Then you turn to the internet where there is always somebody. Much thanks to all and to all a good day/night/whenever you are.
An online debate is not as fun as a in person rapid fire debate.

1 Well where I come from you can intimidate people, I am a big guy, and I can intimidate anyone. 2 those guys in the English parliament seem to be voicing their thoughts in the background, 3 Denny Crane 4 that was in response to point 4 in round 2 "4. This challenge you bring up is the difficulty that makes online debating fun." and I said no one likes to loose, but it is easier in person. 5 you can discomfort someone online, but it cant be seen and taken advantage of. 6 I did miss-read your argument, there is most likely some clueless person who doesn't know what the comments page is, and your secondary questioning goes unheard 7 If you could not tell the video was under point 7 and I was referring to the video by fun. 8 round 1"Just think, every time you debate online you see how they always know how to answer your attacks, know your train to thought and kick your case into the ground." what the hoo-da-hey does that mean??? 9 than the other guy who may be able to understand can question, and their is no proof that he said that because he mumbled, and how can you say ";"? 10 eye friendly screens might me bad for the environment Some people cant debate online because the cable has gone out or the power has gone out, or their computer crashed, or they don't have a computer, or a glass bird was dropped on their laptop. The in person debate has a wide range of adaptability for those reasons. Don't forget all the strongly opinionated people who don't know about online debating, like my English teacher, he would destroy all of you in a "Narnia vs Lord of the Rings" debate, But he doesn't know about this wed site. Thank you Internet you reading and thank you resloutionmaster for taking the challenge