BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use in the United States

Must a ban be working at 100% success to be considered "working"? Might the mere tempering of use by 5 or 10% be considered at least helpful if not working? Granted it does not discourage use entirely, but I still fail to see how removing it will drop the use more. What I have read and seen is that education about marijuana is the biggest assistance. In Denmark, marijuana was temporarily "legalized", use surged, and then dropped by 30% but only after everyone was starting to realize the effects of marijuana. Could it not be possible to skip the legalization attempt and merely educate people on the effects of marijuana? This is what I have seen done with tobacco and I believe the education is taking an effect. (see this chart for an example: http://www.gallup.com...). Granted tobacco smoking was never illegal per se, but tobacco smoking does not have some side effects that marijuana has such as impairment leading to vehicle accidents and such. The principle of the matter, and the moral ideal I feel would be to, ultimately, eliminate marijuana use entirely (as a means to get high, etc.). What you are suggesting, the legalization, I feel, may be capable of diminishing the use once people realize it's so hazardous, but never ceases it entirely. There's also the moral question of: do we let people find out for themselves? Or do we just keep it illegal and help them to see why? In a few countries such as Denmark and Switzerland, playing with this question has yielded some bad consequences. In response to some of your other ideas, restrictions sound good...but they would fall prey to similar issues that plague a) what you're challenging (enforcement) and b) future law-making. Just like alcohol, my guess is we'd find a problem of older individuals buying for the younger. Regarding the actual growing of marijuana, sure it would be grown locally which may impact foreign demand, especially if people want to play it safe. However, if you are buying from a dealer (using the term in a positive way), in the United States, who knows where that dealer got the marijuana from? Who will likely charge less or produce it for less? Just as with any other trade good, foreign grown/made goods these days are simply cheaper than what we make in the United States. Dealers could still get the marijuana from Mexico (or wherever really) in interest of greater cost-saving and higher profits. With the market so far expanded, I could see Mexican growers thriving because of this. And finally, I think it still all comes down to a good, better, best argument. Right now what we have is good, you're suggesting a better, and I think there's a best option out there that could save us some unfortunate and unnecessary side-effects of the better option. I found this article: http://alcoholism.about.com... really interesting and I think gives some good reasons why legalization does not bring about positive results in the long run.
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use in the United States

I look forward to this debate with you. Thank you for including those helpful statistics, especially the sources of those statistics; I appreciate the thoroughness as it helps us understand a little clearer. Based on your argument, I see it as addressing a problem by making it no longer a problem. To be more specific, it's as if since there is a law regarding a supposed harmful (to self or otherwise) act, and so many people are failing to abide by it, that we should just dismiss the law so as to appease our current short-falls. I fail to see the logic behind your final arguments, so I hope you can elaborate a bit. I do not imagine a major part of the Mexican drug trade would stopped. Rather would it not flourish? I envision a great number of people who are curious about marijuana but are not bold enough today to seek it out, but given the new chance would indeed seek it out. Principles of supply and demand apply here just as in any other trade scenario. This pertains to local dealers as well. Those local dealers should become future shop owners. Mexican crops (should Mexico allow Marijuana use as well), could blossom to fill the demand by new, interested marijuana users. And of course "otherwise good citizens" would not go to jail for the possession of marijuana, it wouldn't be illegal. Is that not like saying, "otherwise good citizens would not go to jail for texting and driving because texting while driving is now legal"? Which brings up my final concern. One must actually find whether or not marijuana use is good, bad, or neither for the individual or society. We know that there are bad effects of marijuana use, but there are medicinal aspects as well. How many people would use it for medicinal purposes? And how many using it recreationally will be able to keep their habits tempered? I may look into some statistics about the effects of marijuana use. Should it prove more negative than positive, should we allow it? I would propose that rather than approaching the way you have, by eliminating the problem through just making it no longer a problem, we find the source of the problem instead. For example, why is it that someone needs to go to marijuana for whatever reason? Are they not getting the help they need? Are they under a lot of stress? Is their family suffering? Basically, are there other concerns that if solved, would remove the desire to have and use marijuana in the first place? Sure just legalizing it would be easier, but would it be better? Arrests of course would be gone, but as a society, would we benefit from having marijuana freely? I'm not sure I trust our society to use it sparingly, and there are those who stand to benefit from that very insecurity I have.
Legalization of Marijuana for Recreational Use in the United States

In the year 1920 alcohol was banned in the United States by the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution. However, this ban was later repealed by the Twenty First Amendment. Why? One, because the ban targeted the working class and was therefore unfair, two if one knew were to get it one could buy alcohol illicitly, and three too many people were going to jail for possession of alcohol. The same thing is happening with marijuana. According to the FBI"s Uniform Crime Report for 2011, over 750,000 arrests for marijuana occurred last year. That is about 2054 arrests per day in the U.S alone and 87 percent of those arrests were just for possession. If the United States legalized marijuana, a major part of the Mexican drug trade would be stopped, local dealers would go out of business and otherwise good citizens would not go to jail for the possession of marijuana.
The cure for cancer has been found already and buried by greed.

Table of Contents:1. Introduction2. What is this miracle treatment really?3. Can it truly cure cancer?4. Am I a brainwashed capitalist lapdog?5. ConclusionIntroductionThere are a lot of reasons why everything in your post is just wrong, in this post I will obviously specify why.What is this miracle treatment really?To quote cancer.gov: "The key parts of the Gerson therapy are a strict diet, dietary supplements, and enemas."Now the method argues that this is to release toxins from the body in order to strengthen the immune system to better be able to fight the tumour(s). The treatment has no scientific backup, the diet causes its own problems, such as electrolyte imbalances, but the real problem is the so called cleansings (emenas), which are sometimes perfomed with coffee, castor oil, etc.. Theese regualar emenas can cause severe damage to your colons function, leading to constipation and other ailments. The enemas can also lead to dehydration, infections and bleeding.The method also has almost no evidence to back it up, basing it's surreal claims on nothing but anecdotes and semi-science. All attempts to independently test the method have failed to produce any evidence.The Gerson Therapy has also re-designed itself a couple of times. It used to include the intake of raw calf's liver orally, but this was discontinued after 10 people were hospilatalized, 5 from comatose.Can it truly cure cancer?Of course not. In fact it would appear to be quite dangerous. While some of the things it encourages are good for preventative measure, the therapy method itself takes it way too far.You can lower your risk of cancer with a prober lifestyle, and yes, there is evidence to proove that red meats increase the risk, but pretty much everything increases your risk of cancer. The truth is that cancer is completly random and can happen to literally anyone at any time. It just so happens that if you are living an unhealthy lifestyle or if you are old, the odds increase as your immune system weakens.So no, of course it cannot. Am I a brainwashed capitalist lapdog?As a person living in a country with non-existent corruption and a nationalized healthcare system, the notion that his has been "supressed" despite the knowledge basically being public, is utter rubbish. I can guarantee you that if our state could save just one measly coin on cancer treatment, they would.Plenty of medical systems outside the US have no deals with private institutions and are public, with only the public in mind. So why are they not using this cheap miracle method? Because it's snake oil.ConclusionThe Gelson Method is an almost 100 year old snake oil method that encourages you to spray coffee up your rectum, don't fall for it.Sources:http://www.cancer.gov...http://www.cancerresearchuk.org...
The cure for cancer has been found already and buried by greed.

OutlineI. IntroII. The Cancer IndustryIII. The science and why it worksIV. ConclusionV. SourcesI. IntroThe cure for cancer was discovered by Mr. Gerson. [1][2]Yet, why hasn't this reached the general public? Why is not this on the front page of every newspaper? The simple answer is greed. As seen in this film Healing Cancer from Inside Out. [3] Watch a preview here. [4]Who would do such a monstrous deed? Why choose greed over human life? The only answer I can come up with is somebody who believes this creed. "It is better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." [5]To anyone who doubts me, what would you do if you truly believed the cure for cancer was found and then buried? Would you be silent and keep the cure all to yourself? Or would you attempt to bring attention to this vile deed?II. The Cancer IndustryAlready we are spending 100 billion in cancer annually in 2014. [6] This is big money and when there is big money there is corruption. The tales both recent and past of how greed and money can destroy people is legendary. III. The science and why it worksYou probably have your doubts. Yet, there is much science behind this. The World Health Organization declared processed meat as a carcinogen. [7] Let alone other detrimental affects of animal products like increased IGF-1 levels, heterocyclic amines [8], fat build up via intramyocellular lipids, saturated fat increasing blood viscosity, and endotoxins from bacteria within animal products causing an immune system response. With the many health benefits of fiber, phytonutrients, proper hydration, and antioxidants its no wonder this diet works. IV. ConclusionThe cure for cancer has been found and buried by greed. Think of your loved ones. At the very least take the time to prove me wrong. Thanks for reading and thanks for your time. V. Sources1. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...2. http://gerson.org...3. http://www.ravediet.com...4. 5. http://www.bibliomania.com...6. http://www.usnews.com...7. http://www.bbc.com...8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
All Organizations Must be Self-Serving to Some Extent to Continue their Existence

Self Sustain -able to continue in a healthy state without outside assistance Self Serving-having concern for one's own welfare and interests before those of others. Both definitions provided by google These terms are not synonymous and I will debate the resolution using both terms, but changing the resolution in the middle of the round gives me the ballot. However, Saint Jude's is not self serving by definition because they use outside funds to provide medicine and care for others without them having to pay a cent. This is generosity at the maximum and provides a sturdy example since the pro said I only had to provide an example of an instance of non self serving to continue their existence. I met my burden of proof and thus have provided a clear counter example that destroys the maxim outlined in the resolution. If we implement the words self sustain into the resolution the resolution reads as follows "All Organizations Must be Self-Sustaining to Some Extent to Continue their Existence"Again I use Saint Jude's as a model because they need constant outside assistance to help themselves survive. They are 100% non-profit organization which means their very existence is dependent upon outside help. Thanks for the great round
All Organizations Must be Self-Serving to Some Extent to Continue their Existence

Yes, "self-sustaining" is a better and more accurate term, which I should have originally used. But please consider "self-sustaining" and "self-serving" as synonymous just for the sake of this debate. And I am not claiming "that Saint Jude's is self serving ONLY on the basis that they have advertising to keep the lights on." As mentioned, I believe that the St. Jude Children's Hospital is doing a lot to benefit the community at large. But as you mentioned "The bills must be paid to ensure that people get the most gracious care possible." This is a self-sustaining act. My general point is, every organization must do some self-sustaining, even if it is to the lowest possible degree. The St. Jude Children's Hospital may act in a way that is 99.99999% self-sacrificing, but they must act in even the slightest way to support themselves in order to continue existence. Thank you for debating.
All Organizations Must be Self-Serving to Some Extent to Continue their Existence

I do not like the claim that Saint Jude's is self serving only on the basis that they have advertising to keep the lights on. As a non profit organization that is defined as a research institution that is grossing no revenue. I would rather look at Saint Jude's as an independent supporting a lot of dependent's who need the state of the art technology to give their loved one's a fighting shot at life. By getting the money through donations Saint Jude's is allowed to pay their bills which benefit a much larger community. The bills must be paid to ensure that people get the most gracious care possible. I do not equate that with self serving. I believe that if the hospital asked for the residents to pay fees than that is a self serving act to gross a profit. Stealing on the other hand is a self serving act because you deny the mutual rights of someone else's livelihood in favor of yourself. Now, if Saint Jude's didn't pay the bills and started asking for the families to pay up that is a different story. But asking for donations through ads to keep someone alive is admirable above all. Eating is not self serving but self sustaining.
All Organizations Must be Self-Serving to Some Extent to Continue their Existence

Yes, I will accept a single organization for use as a basis. The St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is a wonderful organization that does a lot of good. .. I'd say they even do more good than most. However, the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital must be self-serving to some extent. If the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital never advertised themselves, the public wouldn't know about the organization, and the organization wouldn't have the funds to continue their existence. If the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital never paid their bills, the lights would be shut off. The St. Jude Children's Research Hospital must do what they need to do in order to continue their existence. In the same way, a conscience human being must eat in order to continue their existence. Eating is a self-serving act.
All Organizations Must be Self-Serving to Some Extent to Continue their Existence

Pro says that all I have to do is find an (which I assume as one) organization to use as the basis of my argument I will use Saint Jude's research facility in Nashville Tennessee. A non-profit organization that doesn't even ask the patients for a dime and has around since 1962. It receives all money for funding and the continuing of research through donations provided for by the public. Since I have found an organization there is no need to continue the debate. I have upheld my burden of proof with a counter example that has sustained itself for 52 years.
Californians are all selfish obnoxious people with short skirts and fancy cars

It is obvious that my opponent has presented a affirmative case in his second round. He is supposed to be disagreeing with the resolution, when he simply listed famous Californians that are but not all obnoxious and wear short skirts. Since you started the debate, it was my job to refute your points, and you had none. Additionally, you never stated that I was to put my arguments first. Therefore I win by default, however, if you crave for me to argue this silly resolution I will do so, with one contention 1) Californians are all selfish obnoxious people with short skirts and fancy cars, only in stereotypes.
Californians are all selfish obnoxious people with short skirts and fancy cars

I believe you are agreeing with me, you know you are soposto be arguing for it. I live I California too, and I hate being stereotyped. Here where I live, there are tuns of old not fancy cars, and there are many very nice modest people here too. in some neighborhoods they are close friend who work tougher and surf tougher, and golf tougher.
Californians are all selfish obnoxious people with short skirts and fancy cars

Look at the famous people who have come From California, some but not all are obnoxious, or wear short skirts: Famous Californians Marcus Allen football player San Diego Luis Walter Alvarez inventor, San Francisco Gertrude Atherton author, San Francisco David Belasco playwright and producer, San Francisco Shirley Temple Black actress, ambassador, Santa Monica Robert Bower inventor, Santa Monica Dave Brubeck musician, Concord Julia Child chef, television, Pasadena Coolio rap artist, Los Angeles Frederick G. Cottrell inventor, Oakland Leonardo DiCaprio actor Hollywood Joe DiMaggio baseball player, Martinez James H. Doolittle air force general, Alameda Isadora Duncan dancer, San Francisco John Frï¿½mont explorer, San Francisco Robert Frost poet, San Fancisco Jerry Garcia guitarist, singer, San Francisco Charles P. Ginsburg inventor, San Francisco Richard Pancho Gonzales tennis player, Los Angeles Jeff Gordon car racer, Vallejo William Randolph Hearst publisher, San Francisco Mariel Hemingway actress, Mill Valley Sidney Howard playwright, Oakland Anthony M. Kennedy jurist, Sacramento Jack London author, San Francisco George Lucas filmmaker, Modesto Theodore Harold Maiman inventor, Los Angeles Mark McGwire baseball player, Pomona Aimee Semple McPherson evangelist, Ontario Dominique Moreanir gymnast, Hollywood Emma Nevada opera singer, Alpha Richard M. Nixon U.S. president, Yorba Linda Isamu Noguchi sculptor, Los Angeles George S. Patton, Jr. general, San Gabriel Robert Redford actor, Santa Monica Sally K. Ride astronaut, Encino William Saroyan author, Fresno Lincoln Steffens journalist, author, San Francisco John Steinbeck author, Salinas Adlai Stevenson statesman, Los Angeles Michael Tilson Thomas conductor, Hollywood Earl Warren jurist, Los Angeles Serena & Venus Williams tennis players, Lynwood Myra Wilson actress, Burbank Eldrick "Tiger" Woods golfer, Cypress http://www.50states.com... Up here i live in the freakin artic up here. not skirt weather.
Are people created equal in all regards (sex or race or both)

First off, you contradict yourself by saying gender is equal, how is gender equal and not race? Most males are stronger and most females are smarter by your standards, also, I would like to remind everyone that some of the best athletes are white/Asian, as their are good professors who are black, I have provided links that have proof as such . http://madamenoire.com... . https://thediplomat.com... . http://www.bleacherreport.com...
Are people created equal in all regards (sex or race or both)

I agree neither sex is particularly better but they aren't equal in every way like many people believe. I like to compare it to a character select screen for video games. Men could have more hp stats more strength stats but less in other stats, while women have more in some stats and less in other stats compared to men. Same argument for races with black people usually being more athletically skilled than other races and Asians and white people typically being smarter than other races. p.s. I know this is seen as a touchy subject and can be very heated, but I want a rational debate without any personal attacks. Thanks :)
Theistic evolution is not compatible with God or His Word.

Hello to my oppenent. Thank you for your responses. I would like to point out to anyone reading this debate, that my oppenent has failed to read the definitions for the debate and the title itself, and has therefore has made many irrelevent comments or arguments on that basis. I'm not sure of my opponents beliefs or position in this argument. It sounds atheistic with an almost child like smattering of Bible appreciation, which is a shame. I do not think we can continue debating this topic without becoming embroiled in supposed evidences for evolution, which is not the topic. I therefore do not think my opponent can make any good arguments on why theistic evolution is not compatible with God or His Word. At this junction, I would just be willing to end the debate and re-challenge another who may be able to handle the topic under question with slightly more intellectual riguor, than my opponent has in his first round.Thanks for your time. Unfortunately I do not wish to waste any more time with this debate. It will not be helpful to you or I, nor any readers. I will extend my arguments from R2 to the next and see if my opponent can muster any argument in line with the topic only and in line with the definitions.
Theistic evolution is not compatible with God or His Word.

Hello, I would like to argue that theisitc evolution is not compatible with the Word of God, ie the Bible. Any religion or belief that does not believe in the literal creation is therefore undermining the very essence of God Himself revealed to humanity in the Bible. In effect, how then do you have a relationship with someone you can't trust, and does that mean that you don't believe in Jesus' Divinity also? How about it? Open to anyone who could make a good case. BoP 100% on me.R1 Acceptance onlyR2 and R3 opening arguments and 1st / 2nd rebuttalsR4 No new arguments and closingGod - One true God of the Bible and Creator.Bible - the literal reading of the Genesis account of Creation, and subsequent references to it in the Old and New TestamentsEvolution - microevolution or adaptation through natural selection not included, as observable in the world. Macro evolution to account for speciation from single cell to man is what is meant here.Theistic Evolution - God did it all over billions of years, and it's just like how the evolutionists say it happened. Just trust us it happened ok.Thank you. Any questions put them in the comments section.