BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana is not addictive or harmful.

Hello I'm just going to skip the flag thing, because it's irrelevant. Shall we debate the topic that the burning the flag should be illegal. "Is he an addict because he uses regularly? Or does he just use regularly because it makes him feel good?" Does it make a difference. If he smokes regularly, it will make him "feel good". It makes him "feel good" because it's like a cigarette, it will lower your stress, but it couldn't do any worse for your body. Also, it makes your energy level really low, so while they're high, they probably won't do anything. Your second argument is irrelevant, because you say people are dependent on it (that helps me), because it's illegal. Well, it was illegal when they started. Then everything else is irrelevant, so I can't make a case for it unless you explain why it's relevant. Why shouldn't we let a person that I don't know smoke 1 time? Because it's illegal. I don't see how that isn't that clear. Lets compare it to killing someone (by smoking, your killing yourself). You kill someone that was homeless, no one knew about, nor cared about. Should that person be left off easy, because no one knew him? A murder is a murder. Smoking is smoking, there is no good way, because it is all illegal. And "just one" is like saying I could quit anytime, but then when you try to go quit, you can't. Have you ever smoked marijuana?- No, it's illegal and I would be killing my self. Do you know EXACTLY how it makes you feel?- Yes, we've learned about it for the last 3 years. Also, we had 3 presentations done by cops who tell us what the effects are. Do you think the government has smoked marijuana?- That is a false statement. Who is the government. That paragraph is strange. You make it sound that you've broken the law and smoked it. But when you smoke it, you get high and it effects your brain, nervous system, etc. So, you really don't know how it makes you feel. ABout the article of the Jamaican women. HOw can really use it as an argument? The study was conducted 15 years ago, and on only 23 women. How can you decided how it effects you when you only testes 23 pregnant parents who smoke?
Marijuana is not addictive or harmful.

Hello, First off, I'm disgusted with your picture, and do you support flag burning (something wrong because I can't see your stances) Alright, Marijuana is addicting. If you are a regular user, you can become addictive to it. People will contuenisly smoke it, because they will become dependent on it. It will relax them when they are stresses. Infact, when they're stressed, they will rely on it. The health problems of marijuana. When someone smokes marijuana, they will be smoking more tar than what's in a cigarette. This tar goes down into your lungs, esophices, etc. and ill it. That's how most people get lung cancer. Other effects of marijuana- -decreases energy -decreases concentration -it will mess up the reproductive system in both males and females If you smoke it while your pregnant, just imagine what that could do. Check out this photo of the effects of marijuana- http://images.google.com...
Sex Ed should be taught in elementary school

"age 11 isn't the age puberty starts. Its been recorded that it starts around age 9""In girls, puberty usually starts around 11 years of age, but it may start as early as 6 or 7 years of age. In boys, puberty begins around 12 years as age, but may start as early as 9 years of age. Puberty is a process that goes on for several years. "[1]Puberty usually starts around 11. There are exception but it is not senseible to teach sex ed at a younge age just because of exceptions. "Who said we're going to force sex ed on children"If it is taught in elementary schools, then you prettymuch are forcing it on the children. Just like children in elementary school are required to learn reading an math. Whatever they are being taught is what they are forced to learn. "And what if the parents suggest it"First of all, this statement does not support anything. A what if statement brings up a whole new situation. Also, if the parents want their young kids to know about sex, then they can teach it to them. " Students spend more time in school than with their family during the school week. "What does this have to do with sex ed? The amount of timethat children spend with their family is different for every household so that also does not support your argument. "What can be suggested is that learn through animations since children who are in elementary school love cartoons"This is irrelevant since we are debatong whether or not sex ed should be taught. We are not debating how to teach it. "Teaching about their anatomy isn't wrong either. "Who claimed it was? Anatomy and sex are not the same thing. Also, almost all kids learn basic anatomy before they are 11 without sex ed. "They would be curious if they saw something like that on television and its better we tell them what it is and the consequences behind it if they do that. "It is not the schools' job to explain to children what they see on television. Children younger than 11 would barely understand the consequences of sex. [1]. http://familydoctor.org...Most children under 11 are not mature to learn about sex. Also, sex is a delicate subject for many people and families should be able to choose if they want their young child to know about sex. Sex education is not appropriate for an elementary classroom. Pro did not make any strong arguments and did not support his/her arguments. He/she also did not rebute my argument. I rebuted pro's argument anused a source. Pro did not use a single source in any of his arguments.
Sex Ed should be taught in elementary school

age 11 isn't the age puberty starts. Its been recorded that it starts around age 9. Who said we're going to force sex ed on children. And what if the parents suggest it. Students spend more time in school than with their family during the school week. What can be suggested is that learn through animations since children who are in elementary school love cartoons. Teaching about their anatomy isn't wrong either. If children learn at an early age they would have the right knowledge by age 11. And curiosity is the main factor. They would be curious if they saw something like that on television and its better we tell them what it is and the consequences behind it if they do that.
Sex Ed should be taught in elementary school

Forcing kids to learn about sex while they are still in elementary school would go against many parents values. Children are already losing their innocence too fast. We do not need to expose them to sex at such a young age. Children have been flashing their private parts since the beginning of time. It is out of curiosity and has nothing to do with sex. We do not need to teach them at an early age that it is about sex. Age 11 is about the age puberty starts and that is the best age to start talikng about sex because that is when they will be able to understand. There are very few hildren that are sexually active before 11.
Sex Ed should be taught in elementary school

But the parents aren't able to teach their young child (ren) about sex Sex is everywhere you look and kids are going to be curious so i think they should be taught about it in school. Even our own president said that sex education should be taught in school. " to provide age appropriate sex education science based sex education inside of schools(Barack Obama). Parents try to sugar coat things when their child(ren) has a question. What will they know what to do when they see their private parts. They might go around flashing it. Teenage Pregnancy is on the rise and many teens are sexually active. At age 11 its too late to begin talking about sex. Hormones inside the child can start early because puberty stars at an early age. If we tell the children about protecting their bodies and to preserve themselves they'll have a better understanding of sex and things of that nature.
Euthanasia should be recognized as a human right for the terminally ill

Full Resolution: Euthanasia should be reconised as a human right for the terminally ill, as long as they are capable of rational thought after mental health checksRulesYou must have at least 2500 elo to accept You must have completed at least 10 debatesNo trollingNo forfeiture If you break a rule then you automatically loseR1 is acceptance Definitions will be debated during the debate and may be provided by Con in round 1No voting framework is required although it is still an option
God exists.

we will examine miracles, near death eperiences NDE and philosophy philosophy the universe either creased itself, came from nothing, or something else caused it. we can rule out coming from nothing because that violates reality as we know it. we should probably rule out self creation because it looks like there was nothing and then there was the big bang with no other most probable cause other than conjecture that somehow the uinverse created itself. this conjecture always doesn't have enough proof to make it a most probable scenario. because things always seem to have a cause, we can deduce more than likely the uinverse has a cause too. i'm not saying what did or didn't come before that first cause, just that it makes most sense to say a cause for the uinverse makes most sense. i'm not claiming to say this definitely prooves God but itis good evidence. ----- miracles don't happen to atheists, or in other words things that look supernatural with no explanation. they do happen to theists. here is an example: http://www.themichigancatholic.org... i post this challenge a lot and nobody can meet the requirement of showing something that would have been called a miracle had it happend to a theist because it looks supernatural and has no explanations. then you have lots of miracles such as within the catholic church, which they claim without rebutting occur. such as dead bodies that dont decompose despite lacking any embalming, or the sun dancing in front of tens of thosuands of witnesses etc. there are lots more miracles to list that can't or at least aren't explained. ----- people literally die and come back to tell us of the afterlife and God. it's hard to get much more straightforward than that. NDEs of atheists -most atheists meet a divine being and almost all of them come back believing in God. there is som decent arguments that NDEs can be somewhat subjective sometimes, but the fact that athesists dont just see an afterlife without God is significant. of course NDEs of agnostics and theists involve this stuff too evidence of the objective nature of NDEs: out of body experiences -one peer reviewed study showed someone who died reading numbers on a page while out of body, and that would only be possible otherwise if they guessed the numbers randomly and correctly. -there is the testimony of probably millions of credible people who have died and told others what they were doing when dead, affirmed by both the dead person and the person observed. consistency argument -the near death experience happens to everyone in very similar ways. this even happens to people who have never heard of the phenomenon and to kids. to suggest that there is a story embedded in our brain is far fetched. non-hallucinatory -there is nothing that reproduces the NDE and the closest drug that can like ketamine you can draw marked differences between that and the authentic experience. mostly by noting most ketamine and drug induced experiences are random, but NDEs again are consistent. here is a load of scientific evidence produced from NDEs: https://www.near-death.com...
Stop the murder of wolfs

I too have a love for wolves and I can certainly appreciate your concern for wildlife. Now I'm not sure why you refer to hunters as "so called human hunters. " It's not a phrase I'm familiar with but my impression is you meant humane hunters. So there are lots of references for humane hunting practices I'll link one so we have some material to talk over. (1) Now you may only be referring to wolves but the article I linked should show you just how seriously hunters are about ethical shots. The next point you bring up is balance and this is true to an extent. Wolves introduced into Yellowstone were extremely effective for about ten years. Now, The time has come when the Wolves are so numerous that they are wiping out entire herds. (2) I'm not saying their reintroduction was bad but they we're introduced for population control. Now we need to control their population or risk them spiraling out of control. Lastly I'd like to talk about just how much money hunting provides to conservation efforts. The PITTMAN-ROBERTSON ACT was asked for by ammunition manufacturers and shows just how much hunters care about their environment. The act taxes ammunition and gives it directly to conservatories. "This partnership of hunters and sport shooters with the firearms and ammunition industry is by far America's largest contributor to wildlife conservation and public access to our natural resources. "(3) The links are in the comments for some reason I can't post with them in the text.
Stop the murder of wolfs

I am only one person but i have come here to get people to understand why the wolfs need to be protected fro so called human hunters. . People are suppose to work togather but its not happening for the wolfs. . The wolfs have family as we all do. . They mate for life they are very important to the wild life and eco system. . They balance each other. . People are ignorant to thenfact that wolfs are monsters. . Im sorry but no there not its the sais so called humans that are the monsters for haveing open season hunting to kill these beautiful animals of nature. . I will fight with my last breath to bring peace to our wolfs. . They must be declaired endangered to be put back on the endangered spieces act. . Won't you help the wolfs. . It would be most appreciated then you know. .
School uniforms should be adopted by all schools (k-12)

Freedom of expression does not apply in all situations. School is definitely one of them. As far as your other comments, well, lets hope you have a daughter one day. School uniforms will not only relieve the distractions my opponent speaks of but it will save parents money. This issue is really a no brainer. For the most part, the only people that disagree with it is kids and punkass perverts like my debating partner. I think this issue would be a step in the right direction towards taking education serious in this country.
School uniforms should be adopted by all schools (k-12)

School Uniforms suck the end. I want to see hos wearing nice short miniskirts. and cleavage. lots of cleavage. Frankly speaking, most people in public schools would like to see cleavage too. Thus it would decrease overall utility to not show us that cleavage. it is part of their rights to free expression that they be allowed to dress like sluts. it helps them prepare for today's challenging world. Everyone knows American girls are the hottest, can't compete with topless European bimbos if we are forced into wearing school uniforms. Also it would hurt the American economy to have all the designers out of work because of some stupid dress code in school.
Belief in the existence of God is Justified.

Thanks to my opponent for taking this debate, When I refer to logic I refer to the general laws of logic such as noncontradiction( something can't be both sides of a dichotomy), law of identity(something is what it is, and is not what it is not), the law of excluded middle(a statement is either true or false). Now while my opponents arguments all depend on the existence of logical absolutes, yet he has to use them to take on my position. Logical absolutes are true outside the human mind and are actually transcendent: Logical Absolutes are transcendent. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space. They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time. They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true. http://carm.org... So again I restate my case: Logical absolutes exist. They must be conceptual since they are not physical If they are conceptual they must come from a mind. Since human minds are different and these absolutes are true independent of differing human opinions there must be a transcendent mind that creates this concept of logical absolutes That mind we call god. My opponent has yet to refute this, and before he can even try, my opponent must first even attempt to justify how he can accept logic and logical absolutes in his worldview. Since his atheism has no way to employ logic, atheism itself is self refuting hence god must exist. If god must exist it is absolutely proven that belief in god is justified. Throw in these other arguments like Kalams Cosmological argument: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. Also we know that this cause must be transcendent and personal, and what we call god. and The Ontological argument: There is existence Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived God is perfection and perfection in existence Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism). That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence. Hence God exists. and it seems to me the atheist worldview is shattered. The theists worldview can make sense where as the atheist worldview is just flat out self refuting.
Belief in the existence of God is Justified.

I will show that belief in god is justified, while my opponent will have to demonstrate that it is not. By justified, I mean that belief in god has good reasoning behind it. M opponent should be an atheist please. I will start here, good luck to my opponent: I present to you a variation of the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God: Point 1: Logic Exists, this is self explanatory, we all know that logic exists. Point 2: All things that exist are either physical or conceptual. There is no other option, my opponent would need to show that something exists that is an alternative to this, which my opponent will not be able to do. Point 3: Logic is not physical. There are not physical properties to logic With that said we get our first conclusion, this conclusion is as follows: Since logic exists it must either be physical or conceptual, and since it is not physical it must then be conceptual. Next points: Concepts come from minds. concept: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. 2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. Logic is not from the human mind, therefore there must be a greater mind that logic depends on. This greater mind must be god. God is the only mind capable of making a concept that the entirety of the Universe depends on. This is why God is the logical conclusion, the atheist has no way of explaining logic so therefore is irrational, as a person's worldview must be able to account for the existence of logic and you can only do that through god.
george w. bush is the president of the united states

Oh well. Since none of my arguments were refuted, I don't have much else to say. I guess I'll summarize. George Bush is not the president of the United States because: 1) Thousands of votes that were probably for Al Gore were thrown away. Bush only won Florida by 537 votes. 2) Ballots were confusing. 3) Recounts were stopped. The tiebreaking vote was cast by a Supreme Court justice with a vested interest in Bush winning the election. 4) FOX news. 5) This all renders his reelection moot.
george w. bush is the president of the united states

Okay, I can't resist. This debate ought to be hilarious. First of all, there are 509 people in America alone named George Bush. They can't all be president. Therefore although George Bush may be the president there is only a 0.2% chance that he actually is. Therefore the overwhelming majority of George Bushes are not the president. And when you consider that George Bush wasn't voted into office, the statistics get even tougher. The George Bush that was elected into office didn't win the popular vote. Al Gore did. Not that the popular vote generally matters, but it's worth mentioning that the majority of the country did not vote for George Bush. George Bush also would not have won the electoral vote if it were not for the recounts in Florida, and of course a good amount of controversy surrounds this, because his brother was the governor of Florida and it came to light afterwards that entire communities of voters that traditionally voted for democrats were locked out on voting day. So you can definitely make the argument that George Bush is not president. Al Gore is. And if you want to argue that he was legally elected the second time, I have to say that he already cheated in a presidential election and therefore has committed treason and therefore should be in prison. Look at all the time he's been spending on that ranch of his. Do we really know he's there? I think he's secretly on the run from the government, always fleeing the White House when they take enough time off of investigating the lack of WMDs in Iraq to try to capture him again. Maybe that's why he has that ranch. It's huge. I bet the other 508 George Bushes are there, ready to scatter all over the country to throw off the groups investigating the one illegally in office. Okay. Obviously I'm kidding with part of this. My next argument will get a bit more serious.
As it Stands, Atheism is the Logical Conclusion

it's just semantics then as far as "proof" goes. you're right that it can't be ascertianed with absolute certainty. i insist it's proven as a matter of conjecture that's required with civil law and many other things that are uncertain in our uncertain world. you can disagree with that conclusion of course. i would conceded that theists have to be either hard theists or soft theists too. i think you're making too little of things like miracles and nderf.org and the complexity. i know people who have miralces, people know people. i know people who have seen visions. my only point simply being to substantite that proof that i was refering to with the eivdience i'm offering. and to state that this stuff is almost surely fact... the question is why, not whether it's true or not. as a scientist etc, an intelligence/intervening force etc is entirely feasible (a spaghetti monster is random though, and there's no reason to think it). i'd posit that these things happen to theists mroe than atheists, but of course i haev no data to make that statement and even if i did it'd be disputed, but it's still more evidence. since these are known, in a sense, the burden of proof shifts to the atheists to refute the presumption in favor of the theists. ...true, it could be their mind controling it... but we know the only distinguishing thing is that they're theists and have mind difference on that matter... so the atheist should show that either it's the mind, or that that happens to them too. so.. it's not definitive proof. but it can be argued to have been proven. and... the presumption is actually against the atheists.