BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MDMA is an acceptable substitute for PTSD sufferers.

There are the common behavioral effects of jaw clenching, fatigue, dehydration, exhaustability, irritability, and an increase of frequency of nightmares that have been associated with MDMA use. Aside from the health problems many of these symptoms can lead to, the irritability and nightmares that can be onset by use of MDMA,could easily lead to mental instability and worsening trauma were the patient to relapse as a result. Additionally, I would like to point out that you have not yet presented the information concerning the pool of experimental research patients, and extending upon that, if it is a limited sample size it may not accurately demonstrate how the remaining, and potentially majority of, PTSD victims would react to such a medication. And as a final note, as it concerns the comparison between seratonin and MDMA versus seratonin and the SSRIs, it is invaluable to note that despite mostly minor side effects, SSRIs have been proven to be safe already, and are shown to be effective at treating anxiety and depression (a few symptoms of PTSD). As a result, I argue that treatments already proven to deal with symptoms are arguably safer than experimental drugs trying to find the source of the symptoms.
MDMA is an acceptable substitute for PTSD sufferers.

While MDMA may potentially have certain characteristics that would make it helpful in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, there are multiple risks that must be taken into account before stating that it could be used safely." I absolutely agree with this point. I do agree that risks are present, and as such, should be taken into consideration. The remainder of your argument makes a lot of good points. Allow me to respond. Firstly, I'd like to comment on the serotonin levels. Currently, the major treatment prescription for PTSD patients are that of SSRI's, serotonin re uptake inhibitors. I would argue that SSRI's pose the same risks as MDMA, as far as serotonin levels are concerned. There is currently no actual baseline for what a "normal" serotonin level is. The only way to acquire that information is to open up the brain of a living patient, and physically measure the levels. The basis behind SSRI's was, at worst, guesswork. While it's true that changes to the brain increase with frequency and dose of MDMA, research suggests that MDMA therapy need only occur a handful of times (4, maybe 5 sessions) to achieve lasting results for the patient. This is a benefit, as traditional medications usually require and indefinite treatment period. As far as the releasing of emotions which one may be unprepared to deal with... This is precisely the purpose of the therapy. The idea behind MDMA assisted psychotherapy is that the MDMA shrinks the areas of the brain responsible for fear (The amygdala, if I remember correctly), while simultaneously promoting feelings of warmth and acceptance. The patient is then encouraged to re-live the traumatic episode, under the effects of MDMA, and wires the brain to re-associate that event from a traumatic one, to one more easily lived with. I am out of characters for this post, so I cannot respond to your last two points about psychological addiction, and neurotoxicity.
MDMA is an acceptable substitute for PTSD sufferers.

While MDMA may potentially have certain characteristics that would make it helpful in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, there are multiple risks that must be taken into account before stating that it could be used safely. Firstly, there are the risks concerning long term changes to serotonin depending on the dose and frequency of intake. The way MDMA functions is by releasing all of the seratonin in the brain, leaving the user with immensely depleted seratonin levels afterwards. term changes to serotonin increases with dose and frequency of use. There are many studies that have been performed over the past 15 years which have shown that the higher the dose and more frequent the use, the worse the long term after-effects may be. Another possible difficult situation arising from MDMA use is the release of emotions which one may be unprepared to deal with. This could include confronting past episode of abuse, re-experiencing painful memories, encountering emotional crises, or unearthing previously unrecognized feelings. This risk, especially with a PTSD patient, is along the lines of taking an antidepressant that may drive one to commit suicide:self-defeating in purpose. MDMA also has the potential to be psychologically addicting.While this is not necessarily a critical problem (caffeine, for example, is also psychologically addicting, and rarely seems to be destructive on a large scale) it very well could be given the strength of a substance such as MDMA in comparison to caffeine. This, especially in a patient with addictive tendencies, could lead to social problems in the lives of that individual. There is an ongoing debate about the possible neurotoxicity of MDMA. Most experts agree that MDMA is neurotoxic. The consequences of this, however, remain unspecified. Alcohol is also a neurotoxin, for instance, as are many other medications. MDMA is shown to change the composition of the brain and a few studies have shown increases in depression and anxiety.
MDMA is an acceptable substitute for PTSD sufferers.

In this debate, I would like to discuss the merits of clinical MDMA therapy for individuals who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Debate will have no formal rules. For Clarification, In a controlled environment, MDMA assisted psychotherapy is an acceptable substitute to current treatment medications. Considering that the current treatment options for PTSD sufferers, medication wise, are SSRI's, I would argue that these do not address the root issues of PTSD, and only addresses the symptoms. Research shows that SSRI's are not an effective treatment path for PTSD. Sources available upon request.
Cricket is the most unique sport

I accept the challenge though cricket is indeed a unique sport there are several sports out there that are more unique than it. Contention 1: Pooh Sticks. Pooh sticks is a sport based on the character Pooh bear. You start on a log and drop your stick in the water and go see who's stick goes the farthest fastest! (. http://www.topendsports.com...) Contention 2: Rock, Paper ScissorsYes it's a sport! This game revolves around being able to decide what to chose to beat your opponent. You can chose either rock, paper, or scissors. In the sport Rock>scissors>Paper>Rock. In 2005 the RPS World Championship hosted over 495 competitors. The winner recieves $7,000. In 2005 Andrew Berghal, of Canada, won the World Championship of RPS. ( . http://www.topendsports.com...) Contention 3: Goanna PullingThis sport is ecentially tug of war, but you are on all fours and may only pull with your head. The sport was named after the Austrialian Goanna Lizard. The 2010 Austrialian National Goanna Pulling was the 25th year anniversary of the Sport (. http://www.topendsports.com...) Contention 4: Dwarf ThrowingYes I did say Dwarf Throwing. It's a popular sport in northern Austrialia where you place a dwarf into a harness and chuck them across the field. Who ever throughs them the farthest wins. ( . http://www.topendsports.com...) Contention 5: ZorbingDo you love rolling aimlessly down a hill? Well so do we. The makers in New Zeland bring to you Zorbing. Zorbing is a sport where you are placed inside an inflaitable ball and roll down a hill. Who ever rolls down the hill the fastest wins! ( . http://www.topendsports.com...) and (. http://www.zorb.co.nz...) So in conclusion, one can see that there are sports out there no matter how popular they are that are more unique than cricket from chucking a dwarf across a football field to playing Rock, Paper, Scissor, and to rolling down a hill in a huge hamster ball.
Cricket is the most unique sport

Hello Con. Good Luck Well first, I would like to say I am a beginner so go easy. And I am going to talk about a type of cricket. The type of cricket is test cricket. It has a super loooooooooong duration. There is 5 days with a duration of 6 hours each day. Also, the pitch is 22 yards. That is 66 feet. The other central defining aspect of test cricket is its emphasis on second chance in the form of two innings of play. While baseball also consists of nine innings, its duration cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be compared to test match cricket. Another aspect that makes test cricket different from other sports is the influence exercised on its passage by the weather conditions and natural environment. Moist conditions are supposed to aid swing bowling while dry conditions with dusty pitches aid spin bowling. The creation of a pitch for test match cricket is an art in itself. Indeed, a good pitch has a crucial role in providing the platform that allows for the exhibition of one's skill optimally. Another unique feature of test cricket is the provision of a draw, i.e. a game that has run its course over five days without producing a result. In a globalised age, where the audience is viewed as only a consumer, such a sport would be highly anachronistic. Yet, test cricket retains its charm among its discerning and fiercely loyal followers. The level of proficiency required to succeed in one's chosen set of skills (batting, bowling, wicket-keeping) is far higher in test cricket. The rules of the game are also balanced between both primary sets of skills, i.e. batting and bowling. Patience is one of the most important attributes required to succeed in test cricket. Bowlers may have to bowl long spells in heat and unfriendly conditions while batsmen have to negotiate testing passages of play before they can settle down and score runs. The mental toughness required to compete for five days over sessions of play that swing the momentum of the game is very high. In this context, test cricket can be said to be an examination of not only a player's skills, but also fortitude and character, qualities that very often determine how well a person does in life. Hope someone accepts! BYE! GOOD LUCK!
Syrian Christians should be given priority when taking in refugees

The fairly new president Donald Trump, has stated that Syrian Christians will get priority for refugees to be admitted into the United States. But as we all know Trump has a particular hatred, or to put it lightly a prejudice against Muslims, and considering that only 10% of the Syrians are Christian and 90% Muslim, is this really much help? Before it is said that Christians are being targeted more than Muslims, I would like to state the fact that most ISIS attacks take place in prominently Muslim countries, but do these attacks don't get nearly, if any, media coverage as countries where the majority are Christian. And today I am here to prove that just because of one's faith or region does not mean that they should get priority over the rest of us, because at the end of the day, we're all human, and all want to be saved.
The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

Objections to premise 1Your first objection was that there are "particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations".I have two objections to this.Firstly, this is only one of many interpretations of quantum physics, a field we know very little about. For example, in Bohm's theory of quantum mechanics everything is deterministic.Secondly, even if we accept this interpretation then it doesn't mean that something comes from nothing, this is a misunderstanding. According to the Copenhagen interpretation which you presented, "nothing" is really a sea of fluctuating energy. Every so often particles come into existence from that energy for a brief time, before dissolving back into it. So clearly this is not something coming from nothing.Your second objection was that "apart from things such as virtual particles, nothing comes into existence". However this just proves my point. In nature nothing new can come into existence, and so for something to come into existence at the big bang is a violation of nature's laws. Objections to premise 2You said "Accepted, although the expansion of the Universe and background radiation is proof of the Big Bang, i do believe. Pre-Big Bang, there as a containment of matter in a super-condensed space.". However there is no "pre-big bang" as time came into existence at the big bang. Therefore matter can't have existed before the big bang, and so must have come into existence at the big bang.Objections to the conclusion My opponent's objection is that the argument doesn't prove that god has all the attributes associated with the christian god, which I agree with. However it does in my opinion prove that there is a personal creator of the universe, and one who at least fits the basic characteristics of the christian god.
The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

I apologize if I sounded incoherent, what I presented was the basic version of the argument. In this round I'll go into it in more detail. Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. By cause I mean something that brought it into existence. Every event must have a proceeding event that caused it to happen, and every object must have a creator, whether that creator is a person or some natural force. Something cannot simply begin to exist for no reason, this would be illogical and absurd. Premise 2: The universe had a beginning. There are two main proofs for this. The first is the Second law of Thermodynamics, which shows that if the universe had always existed, then we would have reached a state of entropy an infinitely long time ago, which we haven't. The second proof is the overwhelming cosmological evidence for the big bang, such as the expansion of the universe and background radiation. If these premises are correct, then it follows logically that the universe has a cause. So what attributes would this cause have? Firstly, it must be eternal. As the creator of time, the cause itself cannot be in time. Furthermore, if it was in time then it would either have had a beginning itself, or have existed for an infinitely long time. If it had a beginning itself, then it would need a cause, and that cause would need a cause, and so on, so that we're left with an infinite regress. The same would be true if it had existed for an infinitely long time. However it is highly unlikely that actual infinities can exist in the real world, as they are paradoxical. For example, if there had been an infinite number of events each causing one another, then each new event that happened would increase the number of events that had happened by 1. That would mean that even though an infinite number of events had already happened, the number of events that had happened was getting bigger with each new event. Secondly the cause must be personal. If it was something impersonal in an eternal, changeless state then it couldn't have temporal effects, as it would need something outside of itself to cause it to take any action. However, if it was something personal then it could freely choose to take actions, such as creating the universe. This being would also have to be enormously powerful and knowledgeable, if not omnipotent and omniscient, to be able to create universes at will. Therefore I believe that the Cosmological argument proves God's existence. Sources http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Kalam cosmological argument is sound

My opponent did not have enough time to post a coherent argument, so I shall wait for him to have enough time to do so. If you do not understand why, look at premise two and three. I have a feeling about what he meant, but I shall not speculate, and allow him to have the time to post his argument in full. If you still don't understand, Premise 2 is "the universe had a cause". The conclusion is "The Universe had a cause". This is redundant.
Debate.org should NOT have voting rules.

Thanks proInexperienced VotersThis website is based around debates, and debating skills. Voting upon one's personal bias would alter this, no longer making who wins based on debating skills, but instead who has the more popular opinion. It is very hard to convince people to change their opinion on something they are stubborn about, and they me disregard arguments. Also, a random vote that is not even based around opinions would cause many to leave this website, because of unfair voting. Self Voting It is not very hard to create multiple email addresses. Two phones are not needed to create two email accounts. This would still be easily abusable, as someone could create a lot of email accounts, create debate. org accounts with those email accounts, and write the password/username down.
Debate.org should NOT have voting rules.

This is my first debate, so if you have any concerns/comments, just send me a message. I appreciate constructive criticism! Now for my rebuttal. INEXPERIENCED VOTERS Sure, somebody might vote on their own bias. Sure, somebody might vote arbitrarily. But that is what happens in the real world, too! People make a vote on their own ideals. That is why we need convincing arguments. To SWAY their vote from the idea they first had to our own ideas. That is what Debate. org should be. Convince the masses, not the leaders. SELF VOTING I acknowledge the facts in this spot. I am not necessarily saying that you are wrong, but that there is a better 'right'. For one, the site already limits the debater to one account per e-mail and phone, making it tough for somebody to cheat. I think this in and upon itself is a big enough safeguard. After all, who has two phones? I just think that they should put a different activity requirement.
Debate.org should NOT have voting rules.

Thanks for the argument, Pro.Inexperienced Voters Before being able to vote on debates, voters should first have experience debating, and have others vote on their debates first. The reason for this is many newer debaters might vote based upon their own personal bias, not who had the better arguments, better conduct, etc. These voters hold a higher risk for making arbitrary votes, “trolling,” or voting for wrong person, as they have not proved their devotion to this website by completing 3 debates. Self VotingDifferent members could easily abuse this system, voting for themselves in different debates. With no debate requirement for voting, debaters could easily create another account, vote for themselves, corrupting and ruining the voting system. This would lead to a high number of people leaving this website due to unfair voting, and the inability to win against a cheater without cheating yourself. Resulting in a huge loss of pageviews, the website would be forced to close.
Debate.org should NOT have voting rules.

My argument is as follows: There should not be a requirement for voting. This limit forces people to make arguments before they can actually learn how to do it. If you cannot see a good way to make an argument, then how do you make such? This rule leads to 'accept this argument so that I can vote' debates that just waste time. It forces people to sign up to Debate.org just to get their ideas out. This idea scares out potential Debaters, and seems to add an air of 'premiumness'(?) to older users. Granted, I see the use behind it. It stops users from spamming new accounts to vote for themselves, but the way they did it was wrong. They should have it be something like "have an account for X days" or something. What is more irking is the fact that they only tell you this rule after you come up with a vote and have it typed out. The idea is a sound one, but the way they applied it was all wrong. Your move.
Far Cry Primal is the best adventure video game ever!!

Due to me never having played far cry primal, my stance on whether its good or not is useless. But I still would like to give examples and reasons behind past and future AAA games, primarily the game red dead redemption, and most likely its sequel. The map is large, their is multiple great DLCs, dozens of primary missions along with well over a hundred side quests (In the main game along) and other fun, random things to do. An interesting online mode, great survival challenges and a massive map, brings it to consideration as one of the, if not the best AAA game.
Far Cry Primal is the best adventure video game ever!!

Far Cry Primal is the best adventure video game ever. Now you might argue that some platform game or Indy game is better but I'm talking about AAA Blockbuster video games. This game has a huge open world, you can choose which missions you want to do, you can craft your weapons, find resources for food and tame animals in the wild. The setting of 10,000 BC is great, the world is filled with luscious jungles, cliff, snow covered mountains, the day and night cycle is great, with more dangerous animals showing up at night. Playing it in first person is also great as you never know what is lurking behind you, ready to attack. The graphics are phenomenal opposed to some lame minecraft blocky graphics or some lame cartoony pixelated graphics of platform games. There is no better adventure video game out there, otherwise name me one.
vivarianial partisaints should give up in the only genome.

vivarianial partisaints should give up in the only genome. You said you could state your case without talking... You have not done that. You don't know what a Genome is, you have showed that. That also means you can't debate this topic. If i get nothing at least I will get spelling and grammar, although I did misspell a few words. I am worried no one will even look at this debate.
vivarianial partisaints should give up in the only genome.

There is oprah, though friends are simple as good can do. Genome is not a answer I hoped but you may be smarter that thought my smart sweet, givin it all. Knome and Genome and Gnome all have meanings pop of ular, givin it all my friend. The directorial current in the genome is not which I hoped for.REBUTT-all 1Video is not a metaphor, not acceptableREBUTT-all 2Didn't this font of currnt hypothisesREBUTT-all 3Ir est my case
vivarianial partisaints should give up in the only genome.

you have the do? Which I supper if I day. The way of explaining the reccomend is giving today: 44,66,55 billion thousaint drillion is not the day way. I have the only expo in cold war 10 which we shot bombs. "Hum Ho" and as you woulds say "Garden gnome" was not the amplifier, big big fat tortiese. Though there is a laugh in the luck, I hope you would say the way today, of the way today, of today, of the way, of say, say I say I say, try to lay, scay is no match for they, hey, bumbay, shay, lay, day, watodyay. The only answer is in the 2010 release date of greater reaserche (A film by donald the sterling) and not the way say day shay lak bumbay so on and so forth. (and I would like to say that this scientific hypothises was not concieved until the early ganuary. tay lay may stay. blay. I gave a note to the princible and the utmost importantist was good. The genome is not applicable. Picture: [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com...[/img]
vivarianial partisaints should give up in the only genome.

First to say: SLUG IT DOWN STUPID. har har. I like to begine all of these with a good oil laugh. So, in the stance that there is naught the, and there is by the, I hope that the semantics of the situation will passerby. Givin the current stance on distant cousins of uours uttering partisaitns like there is nothing to it, I would like to disagree. There are three (three) people (humans, usually dead) who know the locks and keys of the univers, but it is not thee is thee. I hope to check it all out, but outing you is no different that debating. R Rules for debate: 1. Only as the wind blows, the brewing face may fade (socrates, 87:83) 2. I no talk 3. There is only one question to the discuss of us 5. I hope the only wish could be 4. Fire is fire, do not kill