BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses)

Thank you for your arguments in round 2 of the debate. I would like to begin with some rebuttal. Firstly you stated "Another use of recreational marijuana would be that it would reduce the number of deaths from other, much more harmful drugs". Marijuana is in fact proven to be a feeder drug for much more serious, harmful drugs. This is proven by a major study, conducted in 2011 which found that smoking cannabis daily 'sets users up for a lifetime of multiple drug use' and that 'Heavy users are more likely to resort to crime to fund their addiction.' By legalising marijuana you increase the availability of the drug, thus increasing the likelihood that people would go on to do much more serious drugs such as heroine and cocaine. Medical marijuana I agree may be useful, however marijuana is comprised of over 400 known chemicals, many of these are cancer-enduring. Marijuana contains 6 chemicals which some organisations have claimed are medicinally useful. These chemicals are-Cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN), cannabavarin (THCV), cannabigerol (CBG), cannabichromene (CBC), delta-8-THC, cannabicyclol (CBL), cannabitriol (CBT). Surely the best way to use marijuana in a positive, effective way would be to extract these chemicals and create them in a tablet or liquid form. By doing this, the risk of nasty side effects is dramatically reduced and the whole 400 chemicals don't have to be smoked. I feel that instead of legalising medical marijuana, we should instead extract the 'medicinally useful" chemicals and prescribe them to patients as an individual prescription. If marijuana was to be legalised, it would unfortunately increase the amount of minors smoking it. As in the Netherlands, schools didn't ban use until early this year and even now there is a big issue with the number of minors taking the drug. This is leading to many students failing exams and dropping out. These facts are backed up by a 2015 Dutch study in which they stated 'For low performers, there was a larger effect on grades. By not taking marijuana they had a 7.6% better chance of passing their course'. Marijuana legalisation leads to increased ER visits. According to a publication by the NEJM- In Colorado, there was a 57% increase in marijuana related ER visits from 2011( when marijuana was illegal) to 2013 (after legislation passed legalising marijuana). In Colorado between 2012 (illegal) and 2014 (legal) there was a 44% increase in marijuana-related ER visits of Colorado residents. This evidence shows that legalisation of marijuana leads to increase ER visits, thus costing the health industry more. My last pointbrings me nicely into the next round of debate, in which I am happy to dedicate to 'the economic effects of legalisation'.
Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses)

I was wondering when I would get a response. I find this topic very important and enjoy debating it. As per your request, I will focus on medical as well as recreational purposes this round. To begin with, marijuana used medically has proven very useful for a medication. Your fact that marijuana has some negative side effects is true; smoking anything in general can harmful for your lungs. However, the panic attacks, paranoia, etc., are effected by the environment and you mood when smoking. To go along with that, what strain of marijuana smoked does matter. Certain strains will make you more tired and sluggish or active and energetic. A main use for medical marijuana is that it reduces pain. Medical marijuana advocates in other states have said that when diagnosed, they have tried pills or other "big pharma" recommendations. When these do not work, many turned to alcohol. Once medical marijuana was allowed, they reported that they had finally found a medication that worked and had less side effects along with the fact that they worked better for them. As for the recreational reasons, the U.S. has an incredibly high incarceration rate; the highest in the world. Between 2001 and 2010, there were 8.2 million marijuana related arrests, 88% of those were for simply possessing marijuana. If marijuana was decriminalized and legalized recreationally, the arrest rate would in turn drop. Another use of recreational marijuana would be that it would reduce the number of deaths from other, much more harmful drugs. In states with recreational use, especially with Colorado, deaths related to Opium, which can be made into pills or drugs such has heroine, have decreased dramatically. If we were to instate proper laws, like those in states with medical and recreation use, (age requirements, laws against smoking in public, issuing proper medical use licenses) along with creating proper laws making driving while under the influence illegal, medical and recreational uses will prove useful and helpful, as well as fun. If it is alright with you, may we discuss the economic effects of legalization next?
Cannabis Legalization in the United States (Medical and Recreational Uses)

Thank you for initiating this debate I am looking forward to participating in it. First of all I will talk about some of the dangerous effects of marijuana. Marijuana has several short term negative effects which include- panic attacks, anxiety, depression, sleepiness, restlessness, lowered reaction time and increased heartbeat by almost 50%- sharply increasing the risk of a heart attack However what makes the effects of smoking marijuana even more severe is the length of time that the drug stays in the body. In one smoking of marijuana- the drug stays in the body for around to 14 days and in smokers who smoke marijuana more often and more intensely, the drug can stay in the body for up to 3 months. This means that one smoking of marijuana stays in the body 56 times longer than 3 pints of beer, which is usually removed from the body within a maximum of 6 hours. There are also several long term effects of marijuana which include-Respiratory issues such as- Reduced resistance to bronchitis, rapid destruction to lung tissues and fibres, potentially causing lung cancer. Marijuana also affects the immune system, causing abnormally low or high activity and in some cases the body begins to fight off its own "good" cells. It also causes abnormal growth in teen users, brain disorders and abnormal cellular structures, sometimes even the complete destruction of cellular matter. Marijuana negatively affects the urological system, it reduces male sex hormones, and can cause erectile dysfunction. Marijuana is also shown to cause testicular cancer in some cases. The most overwhelming negative effects of marijuana lie in the brain, it can cause permanent brain lesions, learning difficulties, depression, and other long term psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia. Here we can see a long list of violent, destructive long term effects of marijuana. By legalizing marijuana, you are making it more easily accessible to many more people, thus meaning more people will be subject to the destructive effects of marijuana. Legalization of marijuana could lead to many more injuries, illnesses and potentially deaths. May we make round 2 exclusive to medical marijuana so we can cover both medical and recreational arguments?
American citizens have the right to not participate in a binary political process.

But it all comes back to the amount of publicity of candidate gets. If people don't know they exist (most people don't go on the Internet and search for potential candidates with views the same as theirs), then they will not vote for them. They rely on the media to get their political information, and 9 times out of 10-it's about the two main parties, and not the independent ones. Another thing: I'm not against that way of voting. It sounds like a good idea. But the "preference" system is more likely to be implemented than ideology. People don't like change, and this would be quite a drastic change. It would be extremely difficult to implement. I would also like to make one more thing clear: I'm not against the ways you are speaking of. I'm moderate myself, but most people don't want to change the way our electoral system is set up, even if it's dividing this country further and further apart.
American citizens have the right to not participate in a binary political process.

Yes, but a majority of Americans are fairly...apathetic towards politics. People are just more concerned with other things to look real deep into what a candidate believes and what other types of candidates are available. They get their information off of whatever news they hear, which tends to be the 'either, or' candidates (conservative and liberal). And it's always conservative and liberal because those parties were the only parties for a long, long time. That's not saying there aren't people out there who wouldn't vote for another candidate, it's just that those candidates just can't get enough publicity to make themselves known to gather in the votes.
American citizens have the right to not participate in a binary political process.

I'm afraid I do not quite understand your point. You are stating clear facts. Yes, we have the right to not participate in our binary political process, and yes, most Americans are moderate. If you are complaining that Americans only focus on one party, then that issue lies within our voting system. America, and many other countries, have what's called a First-Pass-The-Post voting system. People only pick the first candidate they want and then the ballots are gathered together, with the candidate that receives the most votes coming out on top. America has an electoral college added into our voting system (equal representation and such), but it still has the same basic concept. Unfortunately that means people are pressured into picking between the majority parties (which are always a certain party and their opposition) if they feel as though they don't want to essentially "throw away" their vote. This is why the third party candidates will never win. There is a system that works a bit differently (you'll have to forgive me, I don't remember the name of it) that no country to my knowledge has tried yet. This system is more of a preference system than the "black and white" system that First-Pass-The-Post is. People choose their top five favorite candidates. If the first one doesn't win enough votes, it'll keep going down the line until a winner is chosen. Obviously this system would lead to higher approval rates. I suck at explaining these things, so if you're actually interested, here's a great short video that explains it quite well. v Now, whether or not the United States will adopt said system, that's unlikely. It's a big change that could lead to some major flaws. If this wasn't the question, may you please specify? Thank you.
We should ban junkfood

Sorry. There are only three rounds! Never mind. We shall move on because Round 2 is for arguments: 1. Definitions We- the government Should- you should know that Ban- destroy Junkfood- Candy 2. Candy Leads to Obesity Candy has been proven to cause obesity in many states in the United States. A 2010 statistics show that 21.0% to 30.3% of people in the United States are obese or are at the edge of obesity. Candy, loaded with calories, are eaten by millions of people throughout United States. Though candy is not the only factor of obesity, candy is the cause of obesity. 30% of the obese people are obese because of the candy factor. According to . http://caloriecount.about.com..., there are 160 calories in just a Laffy Taffy. Eat three of those and you already hit 480 calories, which is a lot to the 2000 calorie diet. Plus, there is always steak, rice, corn, chicken, vegetables, apples, spinach, and whatever you eat. Therefore, candy should be banned to help stop some obesity problems. . http://www.cdc.gov... . http://www.todaystmj4.com... ==> Conclusion Thus, candy should be banned by the government. Besides, would you want to be obese?
We should ban junkfood

> If we ban candy, people would never have the tasty candy that they love. > Sugar-free candy is not tasty. The government should not make the people mad. > No. Nobody likes sugar-free treats. People will lose jobs Sources: Logic RUBRIC Agree before: Con Agree after: Con Conduct: Con Spelling: Tied Convincing Arguments: Con Sources: Pro Happy Holidays! I still have a lot of homework...
We should ban junkfood

Ouch. Sounds like you have a lot of homework. 1. Definitions It seems like you agree to my terms. 2. Counter Argument: Candy is tasty and is loved by many people. Exactly. People are tempted to eat more and more candy until there literally full and have eaten, I don't know, a thousand calories? People don't burn the calories off because people are becoming more sedentary and sitting down in front of a computer or TV screen. Thus, candy should be banned to defeat that temptation. 3. Counter Argument: If ban candy people will lose jobs. The factories can sell a different item like sugar-free treats. Not candy, but sugar-free treats. Sugar-free treats aren't candy. According to www.dictionary.reference.com , candy are any of a variety of confections made with sugar, syrup, etc., often combined with chocolate, fruit, nuts, etc. Since sugar-free treats do not contain sugar, these treats could be sold and therefore will not be banned. People will still have their jobs. Thus, if the government bans candy, people will not lose jobs. 4. Elaboration: Candy Leads to Obesity Candy, as we all know, is the main factor of obesity. Because of Halloween, children eat many candy. Because Halloween usually lasts at night, they wouldn't have time to burn off the surplus of calories. Because they sleep, the calories stay.
The United States government should reform drug patent time limits.

Pharmacy student here. I'm taking this debate for the topic and not to debate on semantics or rigged wordplay. I know what you mean, you know what I mean, so let's discuss this in a way where we can hopefully both learn something. Your argument is heavily based on economics, so I will address a few issues there. First of all, the sale of medications does not abide by the nice round rules of freshman econ. Not when insurance companies are so heavily linked to the sales of these products. The copay for $100 worth of brand name medications can easily be and usually is $10 or less. The release of generic medications will lower the overall cost of the medication, but the benefit to the general population is much, MUCH less than you would imagine. Monopolies really don't apply in the field of pharmacy as much as you would think. Second, there is a saying that goes around in our pharmacoeconomics class. "They say that pills costs 10 cents to make. That's just the second pill. The first pill takes billions of dollars to make". Research and development are extraordinarily expensive, and is a much bigger financial burden than all other factors of production. If companies can't turn a SUBSTANTIAL profit, why would they ever try to make a new drug? Third, the FDA requires about 10 years to thoroughly review the drug before allowing it on the market. It also monitors medications heavily after they are released in case the side effects warrant a recall. Your proposal would flood the market with generic medications not 2-3 years after they are first released. If anything goes wrong, the FDA would have a lot of trouble on its hands trying to identify the source of the problem in dozens of pharmaceutical companies as opposed to just one. To sum up, your economic principles upon which your proposal is based, is flawed and applies much less to this topic than you think. Your proposal also neglects the absurd amount of money that goes into research and development, and also jeopardizes the safety of the general population. I await my opponent's response.
The United States government should reform drug patent time limits.

Okay, my opponent has not only forfeited his last round but has also forfeited the chance to respond late, as I have given him an extra 2 days to respond in the comment section. My arguments still stand. My opponent's arguments have all been responded to either directly or indirectly. I reiterate: Drug patent time limits are VITAL for any new pharmaceuticals to come on the market. If anything, they should be extended. Some drugs should even be eligible for large government grants, in my opinion. It all has to do with how drugs go from the chemistry text to the pharmacy shelves.
The earth is hundreds of years old

Also now that this has somehow skipped to round 3, I will pose my argument. (1) Logic (1) We are currently in the year 2013. As I clarified in my acceptance. Pro states that the earth is "hundreds" of years old, this means that for this argument we are debating that the earth is less than 1000 years old. Since we have countless historical documents and evidence that shows that people were alive for more than 1 thousand years, I conclude that there is no way to refute this. I am sure this would have been an interesting debate , and pro would have used semantics and tried to joust me with words. Since pro accused my R1 stance as a breach in conduct, when this was unjustifiable, and not shown within his R1 stance he has wasted his argument In closing. I have show that the earth is more than 1 thousand years old and pro has offered no evidence to support this hypothesis. Therefore I have nothing to refute and my point stands. Vote Con! . http://www.infoplease.com... . http://www.euratlas.net...
The earth is hundreds of years old

This will be a great, quick debate. Some history and info on debating: See also: Discourse For discussion in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Talk page. "Debates" redirects here. For the United States presidential election debates, see United States presidential election debates and United States presidential election debates, 2012. For the American band, see Debate Team (band). This page has some issues A Debate among Scholars Razmnama illustration Debate is contention in argument; dispute, controversy; discussion; especially the discussion of questions of public interest in Parliament or in any assembly.[1] Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premises, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric, which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. Round one in this debate is for acceptance only, anything other than "I accept" will result in forfeiture of this debate and will declare the proponent the winner. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact. Debating is commonly carried out in many assemblies of various types to discuss matters and to make resolutions about action to be taken, often by a vote. Deliberative bodies such as parliaments, legislative assemblies, and meetings of all sorts engage in debates. In particular, in parliamentary democracies a legislature debates and decides on new laws. Formal debates between candidates for elected office, such as the leaders debates and the U.S. presidential election debates, are sometimes held in democracies. Debating is also carried out for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments. The major goal of the study of debate as a method or art is to develop the ability to debate rationally from either position with equal ease. Although informal debate is common the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters. The outcome of a contest may be decided by audience vote, by judges, or by some combination of the two. ----------- I have evidence to assert my position for this debate and hope I get a worthy opponent :)
Public figures is the number one role models for college students

I'd like to start off by saying that this is a very interesting topic. You argue that students shouldn't follow public figures, but you didn't specify any type of public figures (such as movie stars, authors, politicians, etc.), so I'm going to assume you mean every public figure. Throughout history and our current society, there are many public figures who encourage students to take positive actions, as well as learn new things. Since you used the first round as an opening statement, this is the case for my first response. Evidence will be provided in future rounds. I look forward to your response!
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

The future can't be false. Otherwise, the past and the present are false. There is a big difference between imagination and the future. Imagination- "The faculty of imagining, or of forming mental images and concepts of what is not actually present to the senses." Future- "Time that is to be or come hereafter." False- "Not true or correct; erroneous." Although your senses cannot detect the future, the future isn't false by any means. The future is still correct; otherwise, it would never be converted to the present and the past, meaning nothing would exist, or time would stop. Imagination can also be applied to the present and the past. You can imagine about things right now and you have imagined things in the past, but for the future to be imagination would simply mean either nothing exists, or it would be manipulated with our imagination. No human can control the future. If someone could imagine the future, imagination would then become reality. It cannot be both, making this belief illogical. http://dictionary.reference.com...
false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now

Pro implies that the future isn't true. It's definitely not false since the future exists and will turn into the present and the past. Otherwise, there is no future. If there's no future, there is no present, and there is no past. Knowing is simply due to experience in the past, not true events occurring in the present. And if "not true=not now" was a logical statement, that would mean that the past and the future are not true events. Without a past or future, nothing ever existed and nothing will exist, making the present non-existent as well. Thus, your statements are invalid. Thank you for replying.