BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.

I will add only add one more point in this round. A study found that THC, the main psychoactive substance found within cannabis, may actually strengthen one's nicotine addiction. In essence, if a person tried to wean themselves off of tobacco using marijuana, they would be more inclined to relapse and return back to smoking tobacco, thus defeating the object of using marijuana as an alternative. Source: http://www.hightimes.com...
Marijuana is a healthier alternative for tobacco than E-cigarettes.

I'll start by highlighting why nicotine is a beneficial component of e-cigarettes and then finish with reasons why e-cigarettes are a healthier 'alternative' than marijuana. But first I will point out that young people are susceptible to copying most things they see older people doing regardless of what it is. Also the fact that e-cigarettes are not subject to tobacco laws doesn't really do much in terms of preventing young people from getting them. If a child or teenager wants something they'll find a way to get it. The large amount of underage smokers and drinkers in the US and UK would be an example of this. It's natural that an e-cigarette would contain nicotine; they're tailored towards smokers. The vast majority of e-cigarette users are either former cigarette smokers or people who are trying to quit smoking; in addition there is little evidence to suggest that non-smokers take up e-cigarettes. Now, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using marijuana as an alternative there is a relatively high chance that they would relapse back to smoking tobacco once again. A tobacco smoker may not even give up tobacco even if they were to begin smoking marijuana thus becoming a "dual user" i.e. they would smoke both tobacco and marijuana. The latter point in itself would defeat the object of marijuana being used as an alternative (since the negative effects of the tobacco smoke would negate any positive effects marijuana presents). On the other hand, if a tobacco smoker were to attempt using e-cigarettes as an alternative the chances of a relapse are relatively low. A study showed that among former smokers who were regular used e-cigarettes, only 6% relapsed back to tobacco after a year. More importantly, among the "dual users", an amazing 46% quit smoking after a year. So actually it's the fact that e-cigarettes contain nicotine that makes it a healthier alternative than marijuana. This is because switching to a non-nicotine alternative would most likely lead to nicotine withdrawal and the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal include a series of negative effects: - feeling irritable - feeling or being aggressive - dysphoria - restlessness - poor concentration - increased appetite - weight gain - urges or cravings to smoke - night-time awakenings/sleep disturbance - decreased heart rate Thus by using e-cigarettes one still receives their 'nicotine fix' without the added negative effects that comes with tobacco smoke. A final point is to address the fact that nicotine is not a carcinogen. This means that it does not cause cancer. So the chances of a person acquiring cancer, of any sort, from smoking an e-cigarette would be the same, if not less, than smoking marijuana. Sources: http://alcoholism.about.com... http://www.mhra.gov.uk... http://acsh.org... http://www.nicoventures.co.uk...
Post-It Notes Are A danger to America.

- -As we all know. . post-it notes are peices of paper with the ability to stick to surfaces- -These could easily be used as atomic bombs because of the simple fact that you could bring and post said note anywhere and then on that sheet of post-it "divide by zero". The effects would be cataclysmic. [1]- -Knowing this we must eliminate the post it note. . for if we dont we will all have to move to the moon- Sources: [1] . http://www.motifake.com...
Conspiracy IV: World Trade Center 7

My opponent has apparently not understood the problem with posted in English OR Spanish. I realize they may speak Catalan or something in Andalucia, but this debating site is in English. I am affirming: The proposition on offer is that the building known as WTC7 collapsed on 9/11/2001 as a result of damage sustained from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and the subsequent fires inside the building. My opponent has not contested this. He offers arguments for my case, not his. Once again: Defiendo la proposiciï¿½n que WTC7 fue destruido cuï¿½ndo terroristas volaron aviones en WTC1 & 2, que entonces desplomï¿½, daï¿½ando WTC7. Usted es supuesto defender la proposiciï¿½n que WTC7 NO fue destruido en esta manera.
Conspiracy IV: World Trade Center 7

my fellow delegate, the twin towers, were said to contain steel powerful enough, to resist those type of temperatures, could this fellow delegate also explain the accounts of witnesses which were survivors of the twin towers, saying that before the plane hit the towers, they heard explosions before hand. Does this delegate not realize that in order to make it look as if it was a terrorist attack, the American Government would have to blow up a government building to make it look as if the terrorists were aiming to scare or to destroy the American State
Conspiracy IV: World Trade Center 7

JCMT: "The proposition on offer is that the building known as WTC7 collapsed on 9/11/2001 as a result of damage sustained from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and the subsequent fires inside the building." YHUBIN: "I understand how, all this evidence, might lead to a conspiracy of 9/11, but... [George Bush] would never blow up the pentagon and the twin towers with planes, it just doesn't seem logical." I am defending the proposition that WTC7 was destroyed when terrorists flew planes into WTC1 & 2, which then collapsed, damaging WTC7. You are supposed to defend the proposition that WTC7 was NOT destroyed in this manner. ******************************************************************************** JCMT: La proposiciï¿½n en la oferta es que el edificio conocido como WTC7 desplomï¿½ en el 9/11/2001 a consecuencia de daï¿½o sostenido del desplome de WTC 1 y 2 y los fuegos subsiguientes dentro del edificio. YHUBIN: Comprendo cï¿½mo, toda esta evidencia, quizï¿½s lleve a una conspiraciï¿½n de 9/11, pero... [George Bush] Nunca volarï¿½a el pentï¿½gono y las torres gemelas con aviones, justo no parecen lï¿½gico. Defiendo la proposiciï¿½n que WTC7 fue destruido cuï¿½ndo terroristas volaron aviones en WTC1 & 2, que entonces desplomï¿½, daï¿½ando WTC7. Usted es supuesto defender la proposiciï¿½n que WTC7 no fue destruido en esta manera.
Conspiracy IV: World Trade Center 7

listen I understand how, all this evidence, might lead to a conspiracy of 9/11, but you have to understand that maybe, George Bush wasn't the bets president but a man like that would never blow up the pentagon and the twin towers with planes, it just doesn't seem logical, and let me ask you this people, why would they do that? you tell me when you have an answer to that.. poor Americans which died during the 9/11 attack although the evidence proofs there must have been something to trigger the collapse of the twin towers, having a plain slam into a building will cause very unpredictable things, so in that case, how can we be so sure that the buildings must have fallen due to something other then the planes. a very unpredictable statement
Conspiracy IV: World Trade Center 7

The proposition on offer is that the building known as WTC7 collapsed on 9/11/2001 as a result of damage sustained from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and the subsequent fires inside the building. ***************************************** There are 2 primary contentions that argue against the story above. 1) WTC7 collapsed very quickly - in about 7 seconds. If you actually watch a video of the collapse, it takes more like 12 or 13. The collapse begins in the upper penthouse, which falls several stories into the building before the rest of the building begins to collapse. This internal damage accounts for not only the apparent fast fall of the rest of the building, but also for why it fell into its own footprint. 2) There was very little damage to WTC7. The answer to this is simple. There was little damage that could be seen in the majority of news reels due to the angles of the shots. Here's a good one of WTC7 burning out of control (http://www.debunking911.com...). A quote from the NIST team - "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." Photos like this (http://911research.wtc7.net...) show exactly how the damage happened... AFFIRMED.
Love Poetry

Aww. Cute. I'll give you my heart There's just three conditions Leave it as a whole Leave it beating Leave us loving I gave you my heart There was just three conditions You broke it in two It struggled to stay beating I lost the meaning of love I gave you my heart You broke my conditions But it's now back as one It's now beating I love like never before I gave you my heart You broke my conditions... I'll give you my heart I'll eliminate the conditions For one more chance at loving you
Love Poetry

Two Halves (written for Brittany Koritzer)Another lonely dayAnother grey dreamWill I ever wake upWith you next to meAre the walls that separateUs in our mindsDoes love conquer allCan I find the linesTo show you howYou turned my life aroundYou set me freePut me back on solid groundWith the love that you taught meNow I can seeI know what I was missingI know what I needI need it to be always you and IEvery day and every nightHand in hand watching the sunset and sunriseAnd as we both stare at the skyThe sky will stare backAnd see from high aboveLike the heaven and the earthWe are two halves of one love
Why shouldn't girl some boy scout.

you are confusing me a little bit, i would like to clarify some definitions.definitions:Boy - a large trash receptacle designed to be hoisted and emptied into a truck.Boy scout - a member of the Nizari branch of Ismaili Muslims at the time of the Crusades, when the newly established sect ruled part of northern Persia (1094–1256). They were renowned as militant fanatics, and were popularly reputed to use hashish before going on murder missions.Resturant - a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death.Patriarchy - a particular variation of a hamburger with additional or substitute ingredients.do'eth y'vv'st'n -the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Euthanasia should be legal

To respond to your acceptance message, I do agree that it would be regulated, however I think it would be naive to assume that this regulation would be without loopholes or insusceptible to a slippery slope. My arguments are mainly sociological, and that legalisation of euthanasia would be detrimental to society. If we allow euthanasia to be legalised, we state as a society that life only has extrinsic, not intrinsic value. What I mean by this is that euthanasia legalisation makes a statement that life is only good insofar as we have use for it or if it benefits society, as opposed to the morally preferable state of valuing life intrinsically; it is good in itself and we should value it even if the owner is ill, elderly or a burden on society. According to most ethical theories it is beneficial to society to value life intrinsically, not extrinsically and so euthanasia is a negative step on the path to an Utopian society. My second point is that euthanasia is simply unnecessary. Pain relief is so advanced nowadays that pain can be relieved without resorting to killing. Why legalise something detrimental to society when it is unneeded? Furthermore, legalising euthanasia is not productive to modern medical progress. If it becomes commonplace for people to commit suicide when suffering from a particular disease then what motivation is there to find a cure for it? Finally, people's moral compass is very much influenced by law. For example, if tax evasion was to be legalised then people would feel less morally guilty for doing it. Therefore, if we legalise euthanasia then suicide will not be considered as immoral as it is now. The terrible consequence of this would be that suicide is seen as an acceptable potential solution to hardship, and therefore more people at the depths of depression will commit suicide. People also have an inclination for martyrdom; the sacrificing of one's life for the benefit of others. With no legal prevention of this, elderly people will feel expected, pressurised or simply altruistically inclined to seek euthanasia when they can. People hate being a burden and so will often opt to 'go quietly' instead of relying on their state or family. This would be a tragic waste of the value and wisdom that the elderly can give to the young. I personally know an old lady who often drifts into suicidal thoughts and, given the legal allowance, would not hesitate to be euthanised when she feels this way. However, she can also be very happy with her family and friends at times, and all this would be snuffed out by euthanasia.
God is a fictional figure.

Yes, I the majority of the population is religious, but on the subject about creation, you left one segment of that part out. How was God created? Was he just there one day? It seems rather improbable for a higher being to appear from nothing one day and make an entire universe and human kind with powers unexplained. The subject of creation is rather hypocritical on your part if you leave out his creation, and the Bible never states one single fact about it. On another point, you said you've been religious your whole life. Has you parent's integrated the thought of god into your mind? Humans are born and taught what morals to follow, so maybe were taught religion at birth and come to abide with the belief due to lifetime experiences and everyone telling you it is right. To finalize my first argument, if there is a God and he has the power to make Earth and all that inhabit it, then why is there suffering, poverty, starvation, rape? If he has the power, he could make the World a Eden for everyone, but instead he decides to make a multitude of diseases, defects, and much more. If you say it is a part of a higher plan, to teach a lesson, then why not implant the thought into our minds instead of making us suffer and figure it out? To conclude, why would he sacrifice the lives of many generations just for one generation to experience this greater plan? To me a God like that is morally wrong and has conformed religion into a dictatorship of believe or forever suffer in Hell. There's so much to be fixed yet he continues to watch us suffer from his own actions.
God is a fictional figure.

Your analogy left a major factor out, the infants. Did they commit a sin by being born? Was entering the world an act against God? People who have not experienced the wonders of life are killed off by these terminal diseases, passed down from this 'consequential' God. In your analogy, relating to my statement, God did want to hurt the child even if he obeyed everything he said. As previously stated, why go to such drastic measures? There are people out there who have committed very little to no crimes and if so small ones; and yet they have their life swiftly taken away. If these consequences are supposed to preach a lesson, then what is the point of learning it if you're already dead? You can't apply the recently gained knowledge if your not in the world of choices and temptations. You may be correct on if he does exist, he can't pull off miracles all at once, but he certainly can try. More tragedies occur than 'miracles' in this world, so maybe he wants to watch us suffer for petty mistakes. To add, Heaven has to be overpopulated by now; counting a enormous amount of deaths, surely it's crowded at this point. So to fix the problem? Add more space. The only thing is, he's editing heaven because of all the deaths occurring, but he's the one who killed off the people in the first place? Why attempt to fix a problem when your the ongoing cause? Also, he is bettering a paradise in the afterlife when there's a suffering world below that could use alot of fixing. To continue on the subject of miracles in the Bible, how can you believe it? If there were no witnesses, surely it's not an evidential story but more of a "I believe your improbable story for no reason". If your mother came into your house and exclaimed that she just won a million dollars, survived five car crashes on the way, and flew to Russia and back within 1 minute; would you believe her? Flying to Russia and back in 1 minute is physically impossible, but so is the creation of man. Faith does not simply confirm something that hasn't even been found or proved yet. If you had faith in your mother, would she suddenly gain the ability to fly to Russia and back in 1 minute? Of course not. To conclude, we are not busy to notice miracles, as Science's main purpose is to evaluate and explain the living world and all that inhabits it. God is simply a fictional figure made to keep the public on restrain, to make us 'holy', thus lowering crime rate and giving profit to the church. A prime example of this would be in the medieval ages when the church was corrupt and all for the money. Religion was never about saving people, but a profitable business that attacks the gullibility of the community. The Bible has numerous holes in it's stories, with no evidential background. This world is too plagued and poverty stricken to have a savior watch over us. I thank you all for your time, and I hope all votes are argumentatively based and not biased on beliefs.
God is a fictional figure.

To begin, you had an example of a terminal disease to back up your statement: "To reiterate, God cannot control everything meaning that a person will not get cancer for instance, but he is able to see it coming.", but how did the cancer get there in the first place? Supposedly in your own faith, he made everything, including cancer. You also stated that he cannot prevent it, but he see's it coming. It's the question on why would he make these kind of cruel sicknesses and plague the World with them? They are just pointless sufferings on mankind wrought down by a believed 'Savior'. You had also stated that we cannot contrast right from wrong as infants, I never stated that in the previous argument. I was simply stating that the lesson of religion has been integrated into one's mind. You even said yourself you were raised in a religious household, and I can guarantee that you'd be atheist if raised in a atheist household, due to environmental exposure and the teachings of your parent's beliefs. I shall not go farther into depth with that subject however, since I have in the last argument. You stated that my mind works as "If it does not correspond with Science, than it must be wrong.", but in fact my beliefs are based on evidential research. I do not simply take a side because Science says their right, I have perspective of the situation from both sides before I conclude. I have read the entire Bible in fact, and I am still atheist. I rather believe Science more than religion because they have the proof. If I were to blindly state that if I believed then I was right and you were wrong, that would be incomprehensible. Just because you have faith, doesn't mean all evidence is thrown out of the subject and you are instantly the factual mastermind of the debate. The Bible has stories that could never happen in the real world either. If you say it's because "They are acts of God", then why aren't these barmy and impossible events happening today? I would like to conclude my fourth argument with the fact that God is making us suffer, your point of cancer says that he cannot prevent it, but he did create it also. Unnecessary sufferings are occurring across the world to preach a simplistic lesson on right morals through the most dramatic and drastic measures. The human race also did run itself, we are intelligent and shouldn't put our accomplishments into the hands of a higher being that may or may not exist. And thank you for the statement about me being successful in life, I might not know yet because i'm only fifteen but it is much appreciated.
Part 2: A Godless universe has as much morality as one with a God

Right. So, I'm trying to put your statements into my own words to make sure I understand them well enough to do so. Like imagine if I'd jumped to arguing against all that, and it turned out not to even be your actual position (like it apparently isn't). Better to understand first. So can you help me out here? For example, what do you think of this representation of your position: "Whatever the character of the creator of the universe is, is perfectly moral." Is that right? Or am I wrong to say "creator," because it's not so much important that it's the creator per se, what matters is that it's an omnipotent being? Or maybe some other quality? Or combination of qualities? See, I can imagine ways I MIGHT be misunderstanding, but I don't know if they're ACTUAL misunderstandings. So I'm asking.
Part 2: A Godless universe has as much morality as one with a God

God determines what it and everything will be. There is no ontological reality apart from God. -So did he do a good job? He did a perfect job. He could do no less. -Do you meant that no matter what he did, it would have been perfect? -So, if he'd set moral injunctions different from or opposite to the ones we're used to, those would also be perfect? He could not, as His moral commands flow from His character ---- End first debate We'll take it from here. So if I understand correctly, your position can be summed up as: To say something is moral is synonymous with saying that God said to do/don't do it. Plus: God could not have given different commands, because His character requires He give the ones He did. Which would make His character the real determinant of morality, yah? Maybe the principle you're espousing could be worded something like: "Whatever the character of the creator of the universe is, is perfectly moral." And then everything else flows from and depends on that. Is this an accurate representation of your position?
Part 2: A Godless universe has as much morality as one with a God

Ah. I'm still on the first point, actually. You responded to it, and I've been trying to figure out precisely what your response meant ever since. I suppose I haven't put it into this debate, yet, though. More or less like this. God says to do things. Why is he right? And whatever rule you use for determining he's right, why is that rule right? Granted it's not in the grammatical form of an assertion, but I'm willing to let people infer the concept I'm getting at.
Video Games do not Cause Violence

Sorry about the late response.The topic of video games' effect on violence levels has been debated for quite some time. I believe that video games do not have an effect on violence levels.Arguments:1. Video games have been shown to have a calming effect.Recent studies have shown that video games have no effect or even the opposite effect on gamers. These studies show that gamers who were shown violent photos or photos with a negative connotation reacted the same as non-gamers. This study was published in an issue of Applied Cognitive Psychology. [1] [2]2. Video gamers know about the difference between reality and fantasy. Another popular argument against video games is that gamers can't tell the difference between the video game world and the real world. This is not the case however, as many cases of gamers confusing them are not actually confusions of the virtual/real world, but just remembering repetitions. [3]Sources:1. http://health.usnews.com...2. http://gamepolitics.com... 3. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com...