BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medicinal Use

As a roadmap, I will first answer both of my opponent's challenges, and then move on to the problems with his case. So without further adu: "Smoking marijuana increases the body's production of a protein that raises levels of blood fats associated with heart attack and stroke, government researchers report. The finding helps explain the increased risk of such cardiovascular problems found in previous studies of marijuana", said Dr. Jean Lud Cadet, chief of the Molecular Neuropsychiatry Research Branch of the National Institute of Drug Abuse. He is lead author of the report. This and many other related articles can be found on health.usnews.com. The following link contains an article about the stroke of Zachariah after his marijuana use: http://stroke.ahajournals.org... Both of these answer my opponents first challenge. Now to move on to his second. First, I cannot provide a specific medication without knowing the exact sickness. However, I will provide some examples for some different illnesses. Glucosamine Chondroitin has been known to treat pain EFFECTIVELY with NO side effects. Celadrin – or cetyl myristoleate, is another proven medication. Having responded to ALL of my opponent's challenges, completely defended my own case, I will now attack his. My opponent challenged me to provide a medication with no side effects. I have done this. He does not, however, show that marijuana has no side effects. I have proven that it does. (See Zachariah incident) Because I have provided for a SAFE alternative, that accomplishes the same benefits of marijuana, I can see no reason to legalize it. It permanently damages the body, and people's lives are never the same. I now have a challenge for my opponent. What are the benefits of marijuana that cannot be achieved with any safe alternative? Unless my opponent can answer this, there is no reason to vote affirmative. Because marijuana accomplishes nothing that cannot be achieved by my safe alternatives, I must negate.
Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medicinal Use

Now I have personally never heard of a case where a patient who has partaken in the smoking of Marijuana having a stroke or heart attack, but for the sake of argument I will just assume that these events are a possibility. Many cancer medicines are ineffective in relieving the pain brought on by the disease. Marijuana offers something that is known to work in this area. While medication that are prescribed to cancer patience are not only often ineffective they also have side effects that can be detrimental. For example opioids are often prescribed to patience with sever pain brought on by cancer, the side effects of this type of medication are constipation, trouble sleeping, nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression. This commonly used medication for cancer can actually make a person suffocate, while also causing severe discomfort to the patient. While Marijuana offers a much safer alternative that is often times more effective in relieving pain, or building an appetite, or sleeping. I challenge my opponent to back up his following statement:"It has been known for some time that the effects of marijuana are extremely detrimental. Some of these devastating effects are heart attacks, strokes, as well as abnormalities in the amygdala and hippocampus regions of the brain. This causes severe mental disabilities. With so many other anesthetics out there, that have NO detrimental side effects such as listed,. .. " I ask him to find one case where smoking Marijuana has induced a heart attack, stroke or any abnormalities in the amygdala and hippocampus regions of the brain. I also challenge him to find an anesthetic for a terminally ill patient that has NO detrimental side effects.
Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medicinal Use

First of all let me say that I debate here with all respect to your uncle, and that in no way am I "bashing" him. Thank you. It has been known for some time that the effects of marijuana are extremely detrimental. Some of these devastating effects are heart attacks, strokes, as well as abnormalities in the amygdala and hippocampus regions of the brain. This causes severe mental disabilities. With so many other anesthetics out there, that have NO detrimental side effects such as listed, I see it absurd for people to use it. For example: Your uncle could be using many other drugs that DO NOT produce harmful side effects. He could have ALL the liberties that he has when he uses marijuana, but WITHOUT the serious effects. Because there are no benefits of marijuana that cannot be achieved by other drugs, (THAT ARE NOT DETRIMENTAL) I see no reason for it to be legalized. It hurts more than helps, and SHOULD be banned. "How dare" anyone allow US citizens to be inhibited by this drug. For all the reasons listed above, I stand in absolute negation of the resolution. Thank you.
Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medicinal Use

I find it absurd to think that there are people in the world who think that marijuana has no medicinal benefits to patience with such diseases as Cancer, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, and Cerebral Palsy. I feel strongly that the use of cannabis should not only be legalized but encouraged in cases where it could actually help. My uncle was diagnosed with MS 9 years ago and slowly his body started to deteriorate from the inside. He became unstable in his walking ability and the pain from the deterioration caused him to have extreme difficulty sleeping. Once he was prescribed Marijuana he called my father in tears of happiness, for the medicine had allowed him not only to walk with complete balance, but even to jog. Upon use of his medical Cannabis in the evenings he was able to sleep without any problems. Now as the disease has progressed his walking has become even more unbalanced but there is no denying that the Marijuana still helps him manage the searing pain from the deterioration of his nerves. Cannabis still allows my uncle to sleep through the night without having to worry about waking in the middle of the night in terrible and excruciating pain. This herb has made the life of a terminally ill person that much easier, and how dare anyone deny him this right. It is ludicrous to think that the federal government wishes not only to deny him the right to a less painful way of life but they also wish to arrest him and others in similar positions for simply wishing to live as much of a pain free life as possible.
koopin is online

Thank you for posting your next argument. Throughout your whole argument you claim that since you have evidence, then you proved something. This is wrong. Evidence and proof are two different things. Even though I say "I" it still does not disprove solipsism. Your mind could be telling you that I said I. You must disprove the theory of Solipsism. You are the one claiming I am always online, therefore you have the burden of proof and not I. So again I tell you, someone could have put drugs in your drink. I know that you could find posts of me saying KFC, but you can not prove that these statements ere even made. Again, solipsism. You use our debate about Justin Bieber as proof. It is not proof but evidence. Just because I won does not mean it is true. Again, you have the burden of proof. You still have not proved that this site is even real, therefore you can not prove that I am even real. I look forward to your argument.
koopin is online

-"You have the burden of proof, therefore you must prove that I am online. Proving this is impossible, for many reasons."- -We shall see- -"You can not even know that Koopin exists. You can only know that your mind does."- -Yes i can proove that koopin exists through the evidence of what you just posted 3 lines above this statement, "...you must prove that I am online.".The debate title is "koopin is online" and in this statement you even say, " I", Meaning that you are koopin so koopin must exist if you are him.- -"Someone could have slipped drugs in every debate.org member's drink to make them think that there is a such user as Koopin."- -Even if someone did such a thing... how would YOU proove that this did in fact happen.- -"I mean, think about it. Do you really think some random boy would go around and say KFC all the time?"- -I would run out of the 8000 characters if i were to go around collecting and posting as evidence every single time you have posted the word "KFC". So yes i do belive this statement- -"It is almost like saying Justin Bieber is my sister."- -But, she is your sister[1] You even posted evidence supporting that fact that she was indeed your sister... you even WON!- -"This debate is going to be up until Debate.org shuts down. You must prove (if there is a Koopin) that I will always be online."- -There is a koopin[2] and he will always be online.. you must proove this wrong and to do this you must be online, but since you are koopin that would mean that koopin is online when you post that arguement. So while you are posting your arguements about koopin not being online there will be koopin online meaning your arguement about there being no koopin online would be false.- -"Thank you."- -your welcome- sources: [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org...
koopin is online

==================== DEFINITIONS Solipsism: The philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist. =================== ARGUMENT You have the burden of proof, therefore you must prove that I am online. Proving this is impossible, for many reasons. Reason 1: Solipsism. You can not even know that Koopin exists. You can only know that your mind does. Reason 2: Drugs Someone could have slipped drugs in every debate. org member's drink to make them think that there is a such user as Koopin. I mean, think about it. Do you really think some random boy would go around and say KFC all the time? What are the chances of that? It is almost like saying Justin Bieber is my sister. Reason 3: This debate is going to be up until Debate. org shuts down. You must prove (if there is a Koopin) that I will always be online. Thank you. Sources: (1). . http://www.helium.com...
Too many people go to university.

I have a question, If you forfeit does that mean the debate stops? I wasn't allowed on the debate for like 6 hours or so. Now to start my case: The main problem of the past (as I stated before), Was many people didn't have education. Now, Most people have proper education and are ready for the University. It's a good thing to go to a University, So why would tons of people not want a good thing? In the past, Society didn't run very well, There was a strict "class system" that made only moderate to rich people have education. So poor people didn't have a chance, But now the society is letting poor people actually have a chance and a shot at being the best they can be. In the fall of 2018, There was an estimated 19. 9 million people that went to universities, That means 19. 9 million people have a very great shot at life. Life is considered very hard, So being able to get enough education, Is truly a miracle.
Too many people go to university.

Universities are a place for people to learn, And they prepare people for the real society. Are you saying that too many people are prepared? Isn't preparing for something crucial to living good? Those who don't study well and hard, Will as you said "serve cheeseburgers at a takeaway store" Those who choose bad jobs will ultimately suffer in society. Society and Universities are working together to make people choose the right jobs, And the right decisions. In the past, The only people that went to universities were rich people (most often males). Those who didn't ended up with very low paying jobs and often didn't know how to read or write. Universities help people, Not hurt them. So, If less people go to a university then more people would "die in debt", With the same, But harsher result of the society rejecting a certain job. You will end up hurting the society more, Not helping it.
Too many people go to university.

I believe that too many people go to university. Years ago, University was a sacred thing. Society ran well. There was an even society. In this dire age you may have a special qualification, However, There aren't any needs for the job hence you die in debt and serve cheeseburgers at a takeaway store with a qualification in nursing. It isn't right. Less people should be accepted into university so society runs smoothly again. The sooner people accept we can't all be doctors or lawyers, The better.
Obama will get a second term

Hi, I'm new to this. I'll accept. Where this is a rhetorical exercise, as I understand you aren't all that thrilled with Obama either, I'll take Newt Gingrich, though I don't believe he has a chance in a million of winning, nor that I'm particularly a fan of his. His experience & his New Contract for America intrigues me and he's the only one with a coherent plan, misguided and self serving as it may be. So, I'm assuming that we really have only 2 rounds, where this used up one round. I'll follow your lead.......fire away. PeterO
In 12 Angry Men the boy is guilty

The old man heard the words. It's as simple as that. With the fact added into the this old man had heard it over the roaring el train means that the boy's rage and anger was that strong and showed that his ability to do such an act. The old man was also under oath when he gave his claim and said that he had heard the boy say such a thing through the el train. Plus to add that he was beaten and abbused by his father it seems fitting that the boy had a moment of rage and decided to stand up for himself and strike his father back. That jurror did something illegal by bringing in that switch blade. The fact remains is that this boy had the knife, lost the knife and then the murder weapon was that same knife. Even if it was easy to obtain, it still doesn't show the shere coincedence that the murder weapons were the same and the boy had just 'lost' his. How often do you lose a weapon? If you have a weapon then you keep a safe guard of it as it is either for protection or used as a threat.Though when something major happens to you in your life you are going to remember a lot of it. Let's say he didn't recognize the actors, but say he went to watch Magic Mike. How are you going to forget something like that when there are male strippers in the movie or like in Pulp Fiction where the phase, "English motherf-er, do you speak it?" line is spoken. It's a classical line that will help to remember the movie. It's obvious that the kid didn't see the movie and was elsewhere. This is where we get PDST. You remember these events for the rest of your life.Though lets say she only saw a blurry. She still saw someone in that blurry that was the size of that kid killing his father. Then kid than ran out of the house and was seen by the old man. (which my opponent drops) Still, if you find a family member injured from a knife wound then you are to call for help or do what ever you can to help them. The fact is that if the boy didn't kill his father someone else did. The father is dead with a knife in his father's chest that is much like the one the kid had and admitted to having. There are so many coincidences here. The boy so happend to lose this knife just hours after his father was murdered. There are several witnesses that saw the kid do it. When questioned about the movie he didn't remember the title, stars, or anything about the movie at all. The child was arguing with his father and then yelled I'm going to kill you. Plus the man down the hall saw the kid leaving the crime scene. The actual murder used the same weapon that the kid had.
In 12 Angry Men the boy is guilty

First I'd like to bring to the table that the boy screamed at his father, "I'm going to kill you. " Now how many of us out there yell something like that at our parents. We might say I hate you or something like that, but the phrase I'm going to kill you then the boy's father winds up dead in the same night. I doubt that that is a coincidence. Another interesting coincidence is that the murder weapon was the same that the boy had. This murder weapon was a switch blade which by itself is illegal to possess not to mention the fact that the boy claim that he had lost it within a few hours of the death of his father and the murder weapon was the same that the boy had. The Boy also went to a movie, but doesn't remember the details. Say you go and see Aladdin. You might not remember all the plot details, but you will remember that Robin Williams is the Genie and that Aladdin wanted to get Princess Jasmine and eventually got her love in the end and also freed the Genie. See you might not remember the entire movie, but the fact that he doesn't remember what movie he went to is absurd and an interesting excuse. Then you have to the elderly folks. The women who saw the Kid run out of the house in a flash. Now if the kid didn't kill his father then why didn't he stay in the house and call 911 or try to help his father. The old man also saw the boy. If the boy didn't kill his father then another person had done it for reasons completely unknown and this other person had left no evidence of the murder. In order for my opponent to prove that the person is innocent he my prove that all of these things are incorrect.
authorized kjv is right 100% of the time :)

Hey gordonjames :) Im very exited to debate with you! This is my first debate, and after reading your response, (well said btw) I can see that I have much to learn; I did not state my claim clearly enough. "The KJV is right 100% of the time," refers to the advice of the KJV instead of the word ar- rangement. It is true that the translations vary, but to say that one is not perfect implies that another version is... If I were to say, "The sky is blue today," it would also be true to say "Today, the sky is blue." Essentially, the second statement is a translation of the first, Personally, the KJV has been sufficient for me, and is my recommendation.
authorized kjv is right 100% of the time :)

Hi! I hope for a fun debate. My love for the Bible is huge. Itry to read it through once a year. With that said, I trust that Holy Spirit will help us understand what we need to understand. I am a little afraid of some of the people who want so much certainty from this world that they claim a certain version of the Bible is perfect, and could not possibly have some error (that fallable peoplw may have introduced) PRO has stated "authorized kjv is right 100% of the time :)" One way to refute this is to show where different editions of the KJV have different words and meanings. 1. There are several different editions of the KJV that have substantial differences. [1] a) Oxford vs. Cambridge editions Today there are two versions of the KJV in use: the Oxford and the Cambridge editions. Some of the differences in them affect the meaning of the text as well. For example, here are a couple Cambridge passages vs. their Oxford counterparts.Jeremiah 34:16 – “whom ye had set” vs. “whom he had set”2 Timothy 2:2 – “heard from me” vs. “heard of me” b) kjv 1611 VS KJV 1769 - THESE DIFFERENCES CHANGE THE MEANING The 1611 reading is first, followed by the 1769.1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath” SInce PRO is making the claim, and has the BOP. Any one of these differences is evidence against his claim. [1] http://www.rickbeckman.org...
authorized kjv is right 100% of the time :)

I read the kjv ten years ago and have been testing it out to see if its true, all these years. I have found it to be so... The advice of the kjv has gotten me through some puzzling situations; the outcomes were better than they would have been if I had done what I would have done instictively. I invite anyone to find something wrong in the kjv :) But prob'ly, everyone loves it so there will be no takers i guess... lol, just teasin'
authorized kjv is right 100% of the time :)

Not much of a debate at this pont, but a great discussion ;-)I liked your comment on financial gain. “The authorized KJV can be reprinted and/or distributed freely, whereas other versions reqiure permissions and/ or royalties. This implies that one motive for translating is for financial gain, and as if the publisher were the owner of those words.” Legally speaking, the copyright owner does own their translation of those wonderful words. Does that imply that financial gain is the only or primary motive? We never know a person’s motivation for sure, but people who devote their life to the business of translating and publishing scripture are probably motivated by their love for God and His word.I was a little confused by your first statements in Round2I quoted the NASB of Psalm 119:1-2 (bellow)The you made some unusual assertions.“The version of the above verses which you posted are questions” Actually - no. “How blessed” is a statement like “greatly blessed” Not a question, but a statement.“Why is "who" capitalised?” They are trying to preserve the form of poetry from the original (so they split the verses into two lines to reflect the meter of the origina) They capitalize the first word of each line because that is current convention in English. Remember, punctuation is a new invention, and paragraphs and spacing are also different across languages and the large span of time."...all their heart," translated to, "...the whole heart," why did that need to be translated? Someone underestimated our intelligence, I guess.” Here is the link to the interlinear Hebrew / English of Psalm 119http://interlinearbible.org...No one translated “all their heart” to anything else.The Hebrew was translated to EnglishIn 1611 the best they could do was the 1611 KJV - http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...1 [ALEPH.] Blessed are the vndefiled in the way: who walke in the Law of the Lord.12 Blessed are they that keepe his testimonies: and that seeke him with the whole heart.Notice how the interlinear translates ALL but the KJV made an editorial decision that WHOLE gave the meaning better to the people of the day so they used that word.Notice how the NASB uses the word ALL. This would not be an issue for me as both give a good meaning of the original Hebrew. Remember there are seldom exact/direct translations for words in another language. They don’t use different words for our concepts, but the concepts are different. Our best words do not completely express the beauty or the meaning of the Hebrew poetry. Psalm 119:1-2 (NASB)1 How blessed are those whose way is blameless, Who walk in the law of the Lord.2 How blessed are those who observe His testimonies, Who seek Him with all their heart.Have a great day.