BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cannabis is permitted in the Bible and should be pushed by Christians

Lol you're a funny guy Genesis 1:12 "And the earth brought forth grass, And herb yielding seed after his kind, And the tree yielding fruit, Whose seed was in itself, After his kind: and God saw that it was good. " And the definition of a herb being Herb noun noun: herb; plural noun: herbs 1. any plant with leaves, Seeds, Or flowers used for flavouring, Food, Medicine, Or perfume. And it has many medical benefits such as: 1. It Fights Cancer This is the big one that everybody"s been talking about. Both scientists and the federal government have released a good amount of evidence showing that cannabinoids fight certain types of cancer. It doesn"t get much more substantial than that. 2. It Can Help Depression Depression is one of the more widespread, Yet least talked about medical conditions in America. And research is showing that cannabis can help relieve people. "Using compounds derived from cannabis " marijuana " to restore normal endocannabinoid function could potentially help stabilize moods and ease depression, " said Samir Haj-Dahmane, Who is spearheading the research at Buffalo University " research that is only just now beginning to ramp up. 3. It Provides a Safer Alternative to Other Drugs and Alcohol Cannabis can be harmful if you use it irresponsibly, But it"s nowhere near as destructive as alcohol for example. With wider availability, Cannabis can and will become a substance of choice " and likely save a lot of lives (and livers) in the process. And many more https://www. Green-flower. Com/articles/66/50-life-enhancing-benefits-of-cannabis
Cannabis is permitted in the Bible and should be pushed by Christians

Let us remember whether or not the link has been established YET the tremendous amout of evidence that shows people who use pot regularly become very violent, If they were violent they become more violent, If they were not violent sometimes they become so there is a corelation causation is hard to prove but not impossible 50-year study finds causal link between cannabis and subsequent violent behavior In conclusion, The results show that continued cannabis use is associated with a 7-fold greater odds for subsequent commission of violent crimes. This level of risk is similar to the increased risk of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes over a similar duration (40 years). The authors suggest that impairments in neurological circuits controlling behavior may underlie impulsive, Violent behavior, As a result of cannabis altering the normal brain functioning in the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex.
Cannabis is permitted in the Bible and should be pushed by Christians

Wanting to heal yourself from an ailment isn't the same thing as lust and greed, Which can be detrimental to an individuals relationships, Eg lust a married man can lust after other women which could be damaging to the relationship with his and or children ect with greed con artists eg (bitconnect), Corrupt government ect Also define immoral behaviour and give scripture. He made it and he would want us to have it
morality=right+intent

Deadly poisonous mushroom- That depends on who you are. There are cases in America, and other places in the world, where people kill their children. It's usually religious nutjobs. But the point is, they feel like it is the right/moral thing to do. Sometimes this happens when a parent thinks the child is possessed by a demon or Satan himself. It might be out of the mainstream of morality, but it still happens. Explain how reason is the opposite of logic. Computer analogy: You're confusing ethics and logic. These are two different things.
morality=right+intent

Where are you getting your definitions from? I never said right and wrong is absolute. My position is of one that claims right and wrong, in the ethical/moral sense, does not exist. Therefore, it is not absolute like math. Morality, like religion, is just a set of beliefs. And those beliefs do not correlate with reality, so they cannot be objective. In round 1, you claimed morality is guided by objectivism, like math, and is absolute. I disagree. I am arguing how morality is not objective, rather how it is subjective and not absolute. Logic and morality are two different things. This is where you are getting your distorted view from. According to Oxford dictionaries, logic is "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" and morality is "Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". These definitions lead me to the conclusion that morality cannot be objective, nor can it be logical, because "right and wrong" and "good and bad" are not natural/real. Morality is not related to reason, it is purely emotional. 1+1=2 will be the reality no matter where you go. You can't say the same for morality. Math is logical and absolute, while morality is not.
morality=right+intent

absolutes=existence subjective=information=non sense objective=matter=sense 1+1=3(not objective, based on objective) concepts are not objects, and morality is subjective religion is belief, belief is subjective self preservation is logical, moral i agree that math is absolute ideas are information, not objects.. there would be much discussion on debating on morality if it were objective, like the coca label is red, no disagreement there i bet morality is right, not wrong, you just said right and wrong is absolute, concession?
morality=right+intent

Objective-(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. Subjective-based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Absolute-a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things. Math is purely objective, while morality is purely subjective. One concept cannot be both objective and subjective. If morality is objective and absolute, why does it differ between cultures? An example of this is the fundmentalist sect within the larger Muslim culture and religion. Muslim fundamentalists believe offensive murder can be justified if it is in the name of their God. As we all know, most people do not hold this belief. Most people in the west believe murder can only be justified if a person was defending oneself. And even some people won't agree with that. Some people think murder is immoral in any situation. In this case, we can think of quakers and pacifists. If morality is objective and absolute, nature/reality will agree with it. Nature's consistency in supporting mathematics is evidence of math's objectivism. If you have 50 trees standing in a forest and then you chop 5 down, you will be left with 45 trees standing in that forest. It doesn't matter what forest in the world you visit to perform this experiment; you will always get the same answer. Whether people want to ignore the answer is another story, but nature will always leave you with 45 trees standing. This is also what makes math absolute. Reality will always give you the same result. On the other hand, morality won't. You can have two forests in the world with 50 trees standing in them. One forest is in China, while the other is in North Korea. The Chinese can chop down 5 trees, and accept the fact that reality left them with 45 trees standing in the forest. Reality will support their claim that "45 trees are left standing in the forest". And as a result, their claim is absolute and objective. Meanwhile, the North Koreans can believe the number 45 is an immoral and evil number. They will go ahead and chop down 5 trees in their forest, but when they count, their morals require that they avoid the number 45. So, the North Koreans decide to skip the number 45 when substracting and conclude 44 is their answer. The North Koreans can believe with all of their heart that the result should be 44. But reality will not support this, nor will it recognize it. When the North Koreans claim "there are 44 trees left in the forest", they will be at odds with reality. It doesn't matter what you think is right or wrong, if your idea of right and wrong doesn't correlate with reality/nature, it will be anything but objective and it will be proven to be invalid by the use of logic and reasoning. Morality is just a belief, and beliefs are separate from reality. Morality may seem natural because it is so wide-spread, but it is not and it's popularity is the result of constant indocrination and manipulation.
Resolved: an infirmary doctor should tranquilize an unruly prisoner.

Con suggests that Penny should not tranquilize the prisoner because the prisoner may become aggressive in the future or may sue (conjecturing that Penny may use morphine and supposing further that the prisoner may be allergic). May this; may that. Krakken101, all this is speculation. I greatly appreciate your input, but we could conjecture all day and draw no conclusions. The prisoner may learn to play the cello, may write sonnets, learn greater self control, or become a prison guard. Krakken101, help me find an argument here. And we need to adhere to the scenario. Whether your or I think that the prisoner could or could not have been easily restrained, Penny believes that if she does not inject the prisoner, the latter will be roughly handled and some guards may also be injured. How can we help Penny make a values-based decision, help her with the internal struggle over principles?
Resolved: an infirmary doctor should tranquilize an unruly prisoner.

My opponent states that tranquilizing a prisoner is in the best interest and safety of the prisoner, guard, and physician. However she fails to note that tranquilizing the prisoner may result in future aggression. The fact that the prisoner was tranquilized may also lead to legal questions and lawsuits pertaining to said infraction of tranquilizing a prisoner who could of easily been retained, rather than injected with a drug like an animal to keep him under control. We must also examine the mental, medical, and physiological effect tranquilizing a human being can have on a person. Mentally this prisoner could become increasingly agitated and violent due to the humiliation and degradation of being tranquilized. In the medical aspect lets assume the prisoner is allergic to morphine the common drug used in tranquilizers he could sue the physician for medical injustice so why drug a human being. when he can simply be detained or restrained by use of straps or handcuffs. Now finally lets examine the physical aspect, the prisoner could have severe numbness and a terrible physical reaction to the drug scarring him for life and making him more prone to violent outbursts.
Resolved: an infirmary doctor should tranquilize an unruly prisoner.

~~~ SIDE EFFECTS ~~~ At Grace Amazing Hospital Penny Zillion's a doc. She helps in the infirmary, for jail down the block. A prisoner became enraged and injury seemed nigh. The guards asked her to inject him, else they would give a try. Penny is not an enforcer, she will not stand for pain. But if she helps or she does not, will greater harm obtain? Penny Zillion has a medical practical at Grace Amazing Hospital and helps out in the local prison infirmary. One day she is asked to give a tranquilizing injection to an unruly prisoner. Penny feels that her job is to care for patients, not participate in their punishment. She believes that if she does not inject the prisoner, the latter will be roughly handled and some guards may also be injured. Round 1 Reasoning Mill might urge Penny to do as she pleases as long as that does not harm others. A tranquilizer administered by a medical professional is unlikely to harm the prisoner. Rough handling by the guards, even if only attempting to retrain him, poses the greater possibility of harm. Since prisoner and some guards could conceivably be injured in the process of restraint, Mill's principle of acting to produce most happiness for the most people further supports Penny in injecting the prisoner. Kant might raise a tangential concern. We are to respect ourselves and others. The prisoner has rights. Does administering a tranquilizer disrespect the prisoner or even disrespect Penny by placing her in a compromising position? To answer affirmatively goes too far. This is not a matter of policy. It is situational use of medical restraint given an unruly prisoner and concern for the welfare of the prisoner and the guards. Furthermore, Penny is free to make up her own mind; she is not a pawn of the prison staff. And as a hospital physician, she certainly would rule out adverse reactions or other issues of medical history. No, the Kantian concern for disrespect or being used by others does not pertain. The guiding light in this case comes from Mill. Tranquility through modern medicine will make life easier for everybody in this situation.
Resolved: an infirmary doctor should tranquilize an unruly prisoner.

Noel I am using realistic, normal conditions as applied to the scenario but lets play by you rules. Even if Penny feels that the prisoner may be "roughly handled" that's no reason to obstruct the guard from doing his/her job which is to retain the prisoner as i said earlier she has no right do such a thing to a person. If Penny is concerned for the guards well being she would seek help, Penny has her own moral and just principles she must adhere to especially in a case when tranquilizing the prisoner is completely unnecessary.
Resolved: African-Americans are the most discriminated against race.

Contention 1: Affirmative ActionCurrently we have a program called Affirmative Action that's calls for legal discrimination against whites in the job market and in school higherings. Allan Bakke lead a Supreme Court Case about the University of California denying him the right to go their just because he was white. Luckily the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke. (http://www.pbs.org...) Many people today already recognize the discrimination against whites. (http://godfatherpolitics.com...) Contention 2: Native AmericansThe trail of Tears is when President Andrew Jackson rounded up the native Americans and sent them to Kansas and Indian territory. He by passed the Supreme Court as well. (http://www.pbs.org...) Later President Grant institutes the Peace Policy with the Native Americans were the Natives would go onto reservations or the US military would attack the Natives during the winter and attack their women and children. (http://www.nlm.nih.gov...)
Resolved: African-Americans are the most discriminated against race.

I believe I am saying that they are the most discriminated against race so... I will say that they are not treated fairly still. Just because they law has changed about how african americans and whites can be together now, doesn't mean human minds change. And still you hear people say "I don't like blacks." And they make jokes about African Americans. You don't hear a white joke. It just isn't normal. So that proves that whites still discriminate African Americans more, than others.
Resolved: African-Americans are the most discriminated against race.

This debate will be about weather or not African-Americans were the race that was discriminated against the most. Rules1. Wikipeadia is not an acceptable source.2. No cussing.3. 1st round is for acceptance and definitions only.4. No new arguments in round 4. African-American- an American of African decent. (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)Discriminated- unfair treatment of person or groups differently from other groups (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
Resolved: African-Americans are the most discriminated against race.

Contentions 1, 2, and 4These points were, once again, dropped, so please extend them across the board. Contention 3: African-Americans Pro brings up a source that actually helps me out by stating that Reverse Racism is more of a problem than anti-black racism which is exactly what contention 1 was about. So I thank pro for bringing up a source to help me out here. Secondly, this is incorrect for many reasons as I have proved that African-Americans just cannot get along with each other let a long other races. Now I know this sounds racist, but I have given you the two key incidents from them selling themselves into slavery to segregating themselves in Africa. So my point stands.
Resolved: African-Americans are the most discriminated against race.

Contention 1: Affirmative ActionMy opponent did not attack my point here so please extend it across the board.Contention 2: Native AmericansMy opponent did not attack my point here so please extend it across.Contention 3: African-Americans Here we can see that African tribe leaders actually sold themselves into slavery to the Europeans! Ghanaian politician Samuel Fuseni actually notes this that his ancestors actually sold themselves into slavery to make a small profit. (http://hnn.us...) So you can see here that Africans caused their own suffering, but let's look further into the future where we can see that the African-Americans still cannot get along amongst themselves. In the nation of Liberia, African Americans went back to Africa, but had established a race system and had placed themselves atop of the native Africans. So we can see that African-Americans argue amongst themselves and cannot get along even when left along as they were in Liberia. We all know the KKK correct? Well you see African-Americans have been reported to have killed more African-Americans than the KKK has. (http://www.jsonline.com...) Contention 4: The IrishIn the north the Irish were discriminated against. Boss Tweed decided to help the Irish, but in return the Irish had to give up their vote/vote for Democrats in the New York elections. (http://www.fasttrackteaching.com...) There was also a political party known as the Know Nothings that came out of the northeast. Their main goal was to target and rid the US of the Irish and their Catholicism. (http://history1800s.about.com...) The KKK, which is most famously known for their anti-African American tactics have also targeted the Irish and the Catholic church. (http://www.thecatholicthing.org...)
Harvard-Westlake is the best middle/high school in the country.

You failed to answer my arguments which shows you have nothing to say. 1. The points I said before have good and specific evidence. 2. Your argument is completely opinionated because - You state no evidence - my evidence rules out any of yours - you have given no reasons why it is the best Because I have rebutted all your "arguments" and you have failed to rebut mine, I win this debate.
Harvard-Westlake is the best middle/high school in the country.

Thank You for bringing up this argument!! First I would like to clarify some things. I go to HW and I like it. I am debating you merely to show that you are wrong. 1. You state that HW is the best shool in the country, however that is an opinoinated statement. - You never stated what it is best for therefore, you imply that it is the best according to opinion. - Not everyone thinks that therefore it is not true. - Newsweek Magazine has researched schools, and HW is not even in on of the top ten. Time Magazine, and many others have also done this research and HW is not the top school. 2. Because you statement is opinionated, it can't be true. Ther is no evidence that all your opinions are correct. Additionally, there is no evidence that Harvard-Westlake is the best at everything. They haven't won every single competition, they don't have the highest average grades, and they have never ben rated as the best school in the US. 3. You have no valid arguments and no evidence therefore I win this debate.
Goldfish are superior to Cheez-its

The Goldfish and Cheez-Its are foods (In other words: "don't try to BS a BSer") If I see someone say that Cheez-Its or Goldfish are not what I intended, I have the ability to call BS and win the debate. Definition: Superior: Better than Either side has to prove that their cheesy food are better than the opponents. Let's have fun with this.
should phones be aloud in schools

Ok, I'm just going to argue for the sake of time.Students often forget to turn off their phones in class, and ringing noises or text-message alerts disrupt learning.Even if set to silent, cell phones can still cause distraction, since text messaging has become a high-tech method of passing notes in school.In the event of a widespread crisis, rampant cell phone use can overload communication systems and render them inoperable.Student cell phone networks add to the spread of rumors and misinformation, which can be harmful during a widespread crisis.Mobile phones with a connection to the Internet (therefore, Facebook and Twitter) can be even more of a distraction and can be used for cyberbullying. Phones can be used as cheating devices during exams.The long-term physical effects of cell phone use are still undetermined.
Carli aka SexyCracker is the most amazing person ever.

1) neither do i but we talk on the phone and she is amazing and sweet to talk to 2) i don't see why she doesn't seem amazing to you 3) so she's cocky? alot of people are cocky 4) doesn't do any of what? 5) i would! 6) everybody does in fact have a different opinion, that's why you can't take what anyone else says to heart.
Carli aka SexyCracker is the most amazing person ever.

I have different point of view about the word "amazing." Carli is just another person living on Earth. 1) I don't know her in person. 2) She doesn't seems that amazing to me. 3) She really is too cocky about herself just "owned" somebody. 4) The word "amazing" would be something that is different and really shocked me, Carli doesn't do any of those (Sorry). 5) Who in the world would memorized the whole lyrics from "Time Warp" beside herself? 6) She also tried to tell me that I got bad taste of music, but seriously, everybody got different taste of music. We all know that. Again, every person have their own opinion and point of view about everything. The topic is "Carli aka SexyCracker is the most amazing person ever" and you are the only person would have to agree with that statement beside Carli.