BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama would NOT be the first black president.

Thank you for excepting the debate. First, I will counter your points and questions. 1) "So, RMK, tell me - who is black enough for you to give them the credit of being the first black president if they were elected?" It is not about being "black enough" for credit to be given. That statement has missed the mark of this presentation. The objection I have to Barack Obama claiming to be black, is that he bypasses the issue of being of mixed ethnicity. You claim that I made no mention to the definition of what I mean by "black." This by no means is my definition, but rather a biological definition. A person of "black" persuasion has a "black" mother AND father. Barack Obama, regardless of the color of his skin, his half white and half black. 2) Your second point was rather winded for such a subtle point. I understand your logic for distinguishing between black, African, and American ancestry, but this is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? Because the debate is not between mixed ethnicity of being black AND American...the debate is due to TRUE mixed ethnicity between two extreme factions of race (white and black). "People take racial and ethnic considerations way too seriously. Consider, for a moment, exactly what we're debating here. This resolution/topic states that Barack Obama, who is clearly dark-skinned and whose father is a first-generation immigrant from Kenya, isn't black!" This debate is not about Barack Obama NOT being black. Technically, he is half black. However, when a person is half of one ethnicity and half of another ethnicity and they declare themselves to be only one of those...that is a problem. This isn't about the color of his skin. I know many whites who have as dark, or darker, skin then Barack Obama. That is not the case at hand. It is the declaration of one over the other that is a ploy to make gains. "That would be like saying that Einstein wasn't German because his vast intelligence meant that he wasn't average, and because he left Germany at a young age and thus didn't experience what most Germans did." This is a poor statement regarding this issue. For one, Einstein was from Germany. He spent his youth there. How does this relate to Barack Obama being born and raised in the United States of America? Or, how does this have anything to do with Obama's mixed ethnicity. Being German-American is much different than being white/black American. This would be like me, of German descent by my family immigrating almost 130 years ago, to run for president and say I am German. Totally disregarding the American in me. Obama has no connection to Africa, except for the fact that his father was a first-generation immigrant. Hopefully, you understand the issue at hand. It is not about the color of his skin. It is about declaration of what he is claiming his ethnicity to be.
It's ok to be lesbian, bisexual, or gay

Thank you for the response. This round will be separated into 2 quick sections, Rebuttals Closing statements RebuttalsI) II) " And about it being "unhealthy", it is always safe to be who you are as long as you protect yourself. For example, I know it's kind of gross but sex, you can use certain treatments to prevent a sickness from happening." Once again, inaccuracy. First of all, some health issues can not be reversed, like the greater chance of having a lower lifespan. And even if you are to do special treatments, they may involve various things such as radiation, which is unhealthy. Because of such, homosexuality is very bad. Now that I have made my opponent's rebuttals incorrect, I will finish off with my closing statements.Closing statements This is more of a conclusion. In conclusion, being homosexual or bisexual provides dangerous health problems. Furthermore, you are going against the beliefs of billions. Because of such, homosexuality and bisexuality is incable of being just "ok". It can be very good or very bad, but no "ok" because it cannot remain on equal ground.
It's ok to be lesbian, bisexual, or gay

I see your point with the religion, but even some people, let's use Christians for example, still have lesbians, bisexuals, and gays in their religion. The religion does not matter, what matters is how the person feels. And about it being "unhealthy", it is always safe to be who you are as long as you protect yourself. For example, I know it's kind of gross but sex, you can use certain treatments to prevent a sickness from happening.
It's ok to be lesbian, bisexual, or gay

Many people think that likeing the same gender is a choise, but people are people, and each and everyone of us have the right to be who we are. Why do people Judge one another's feelings? People have to mind their own business and move on, if you don't like someone being gay, do not talk to them but respect them for who they are. Speaking as bisexual myself, I had many bumps in the road with haters and homophobics, but I learned that I am who I am and that it is ok to be gay. Even these links prove it: Okaytobeyay.blogspot.com
Nurture is more important than Nature

Awaiting response... Repost of original response below: Salutations!!! Nice topic... I would like to challenge your positon on nature vs. nurture on the basis that the superiority of nurture is evidenced by the advancement of the human species, i.e., we take things from nature and modify/cultivate them for our own purposes. If we accepted (or even regarded as equal to nurture) the purposes/ends acribed by nature we would never have reached our current level of development, and whether deemed good or bad, it is irrefutable that it (our nurture/cultivation) has produced changes to our environment/situation far beyond the assignment derived from nature.
Nurture is more important than Nature

Salutations!!! Nice topic... I would like to challenge your positon on nature vs. nurture on the basis that the superiority of nurture is evidenced by the advancement of the human species, i.e., we take things from nature and modify/cultivate them for our own purposes. If we accepted (or even regarded as equal to nurture) the purposes/ends acribed by nature we would never have reached our current level of development, and whether deemed good or bad, it is irrefutable that it (our nurture/cultivation) has produced changes to our environment/situation far beyond the assignment derived from nature.
Medical Marijuana

You keep saying we needn't ban medicines that are worse. Marijuana isn't a medicine. It's a poison. Dying doesn't sound appealing to me. Most medicines don't kill you, if they do commonly they are called poison. So in my opinion why destroy your brain, cause cannabis, or even schizophrenia when you need to take other medicines. I can promise that the FDA or another government agency would step in if they found that Advil killed you. So even if you think it's medicine, it shouldn't be legal. Wikipedia is a terrible resource. I read one of their articles and it said Joe Biden was president and that obama was vice. Does that sound correct? It has happened to me many times, another time it said the confederate states of America was still around. Here is an article about this: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu... Um, it doesn't say it was politically motivated. It says it may or may not. So you need to re-read that because it shows the maybe, not the certain. Obviously people don't NEED marijuana, but you think it's a good alternative. Which is kinda implied in your first argument. And as I have said it isn't. Chewing medical marijuana is still bad. Although it is less harmful it can be overdosed easily and give you tremendous pain. Like chewing tobacco, it can give you mouth cancer. Source: Dad (doctor). Either way most medical marijuana is smoked because it works faster. It does say that it peaks 1 week after. Frequent users are gonna have peaks all the time then. If I smoked now (which I wouldn't) and then tomorrow and the next day etc. then after 1 week I'll be pissy every day. Here's an article about this: http://ncpic.org.au... I define 9% as a lot. If 9% of kids died in America at birth, it would be considered high. Yes, legal drugs do give you mood swings, but none of those you mentioned are used to treat what marijuana 'treats'. Also you get aggression through cannabis, a temporary mental disorder not a simple side effect. And my schizophrenia case still stands tall and strong, you didn't even try to rebut it. (just saying no meanness intended). Marijuana is also a gateway drug. A gateway drug means it makes you more inclined to use other use i.e. heroin or crack. If this is true I don't want patients to start at bad and end at worse. It is also against a Hippocratic oath to prescribe marijuana. In the oath it basically says I won't hurt my patients. well If marijuana does all these things, (which studies indicate they do) then every time they prescribe this that means that their hurting a patient. Oh, and by the way I urge no one to vote for me or him. Vote on your own liking/choice, not our saying so.
Medical Marijuana

Well I'm gonna talk about my sources first. You criticize me yet you use Wikipedia. And we l know that that isn't a valid source all of the time, so you shouldn't even say anything about my sources. Also you criticize the FDA, but are they politically motivated to say that candy is bad for you? You saying this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, but not literally obviously. Their job is to say what is healthy for you and what is bad for you, if they mess up their in deep %^&* because of lawsuits. So this being said, I don't think they would lie about public safety. And how is marijuana have medical benefits, it has 400 chemicals in it and has carcinogens. One marijuana cigarette is like 10 normal cigarettes. So why have it as medicine when you have others that will not act like this. If you doctor http://wwwgives you this I think he needs to go back to med school. Sources: http://www.well.com... Marijuana is possibly linked to mental sicknesses. One is schizophrenia. So once again how is this medicine if it causes you to go crazy. I see no purpose to marijuana uses, this is the only 'medicine' as you would say that causes this. It also causes cannabis which is short term. Source: http://www.time.com... Um your Advil and Tylenol doesn't debunk anything. My dad's view says the side effects are worse then any other prescription drug, not that one is better to the other. You would debunk me if I said something about effectiveness, but I didn't. I talked about harm, not effectiveness. Question, you say marijuana isn't toxic, only the stuff with it. Well, if it's all in there it's gonna be toxic.That's like saying putting arsenic into coffee and claiming that this coffee isn't toxic. you right, the coffee isn't toxic, but it is bad for you with the stuff in there. So yes your right the leaf isn't toxic, but the cigarette as a whole is toxic. The pain killers, are they addictive? the answer is yes. But why aren't the illegal? Because they don't cause cancer as easily, don't cause cannabis or schizophrenia, aggressiveness as much, or cause crime. This is why marijuana is illegal, and Advil or Tylenol aren't. Here's the source for the 9% and the aggressive argument: http://drugabuse.gov... I read the sources from you given to make sure at least some of it is from there. You have never met a aggressive marijuana usage. So it's tour word vs. a study. I am not doubting your opinion, but those are the facts. As you know cannabis makes you aggressive, so if they are linked how will you not become aggressive. Obviously I don't mean every Pot user becomes aggressive, but many do. Here is a forum talking about people's personal experience with the drug, and i hope this may clear out this issue: http://www.forummatters.com... I really like this debate, and still good luck. I await your response.
Medical Marijuana

My opponent has misrepresented my point. I did not argue that patients who have gone through chemotherapy need marijuana. I argued that marijuana has a potential benefit, so it should not be criminalized. "My father, who is a physician says that there are prescription medicine that people should use other then marijuana, because they have less side effects that harm you." I rebutted this in my example equating it to criminalizing Advil because Tylenol works better.It is true that marijuana has some harmful side effects. That is not in question. Lots of drugs have terrible side effects. It is up to the physician and the patient to decide whether the side effects are worth it to treat the ailment. It is not for the state to criminalize. There are loads of chemicals in cookies too, whether or not they are badly toxic is the question. Marijuana is not very toxic. This is the fallacy that the whole is nothing more that the sum of its parts. It is a composition fallacy. Just because marijuana has something which may be deemed terribly toxic doesn't mean that marijuana is itself terribly toxic.There is also the fact that everything is toxic to consider. Too much water is toxic. Marijuana's toxicity is so low that no one has ever died of an overdose of marijuana. The argument that marijuana is addictive follows those same lines. Lasagne is addictive too. The addictiveness of a drug is basically irrelevant. Common pain-killers are far more addictive than marijuana and they are not criminalized. For clarity's sake, I ask my opponent to please provide a source for "About 9% of people get a dependency when using marijuana. It also makes a withdrawal syndrome ,similar to nicotine, making it harder to quit. It also makes people more aggressive."I don't know of a study to back me up here, but I have never ever met an aggressive marijuana user. It is pretty common knowledge that they just kind of sit there. I will now critique the sources of my opponent:1. npr.org: the article to which my opponent linked is actually about how the FDA's decision may have been politically motivated, my opponent has linked to an article which supports more my side than his/hers. 2. abovetheinfluence.com: This website is ridiculously biased. It is run by the government(1) and is propaganda (2). "ONDCP is specifically charged with the responsibility for "taking such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use" of certain controlled substances such as marijuana" Sources:(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org... I look forward to my opponent's response.
Medical Marijuana

You have made a good argument but it has it's faults too. You say that patients that have gone through chemotherapy need marijuana. This is false. My father, who is a physician says that there are prescription medicine that people should use other then marijuana, because they have less side effects that harm you. One of these side effects is it effects the immune system. Donald P. Tashkin, MD, in his 2001 article "Effects of Smoked Marijuana on the Lung and Its Immune Defenses: Implications for Medicinal Use in HIV-Infected Patients, published in the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics, stated: "Frequent marijuana use can cause airway injury, lung inflammation and impaired pulmonary defense against infection. The major potential pulmonary consequences of habitual marijuana use of particular relevance to patients with AIDS is superimposed pulmonary infection, which could be life threatening in the seriously immonocompromised patient." There are more studies to prove the point. You also say that it has medical benefits and is non toxic.There are 400 chemicals in marijuana. most of them are toxic in a medicine perspective. Compared to other drugs your right, marijuana isn't very addicting, but it still is addictive, well not compared to crack. Long term marijuana use is addictive. About 9% of people get a dependency when using marijuana. It also makes a withdrawal syndrome ,similar to nicotine, making it harder to quit. It also makes people more aggressive. Also, the FDA sys their are now studies that have significant proof that medical marijuana has benefits. FDA spokesperson Susan Bro said the agency issued its statement in response to inquiries from the public and Congress. "For the FDA, there has not been enough clinical data demonstrating that either the drug is effective or safe in treating chronic, painful conditions," Bro said. Sources: http://drugabuse.gov... http://www.abovetheinfluence.com... http://www.npr.org... My Dad (who is a doctor)
Medical Marijuana

Often, I see the DEA using propaganda to sway public opinion. The DEA has business trying to inform people about their work- they are the drug enforcement agency- the executives that arrest people for using marijuana for any reason, including medical reasons. Their propaganda flies in the face of modern science and the conclusions of the general scientific community. Marijuana has an incredibly small toxicity, as evidenced by the number of deaths from marijuana overdose per year, which is zero (1). The DEA uses faulty reasoning when it says that marijuana is addictive (2). It cites 15 year old studies to find that marijuana is addictive while ignoring the plethora of studies that find the opposite (3). It is common knowledge that marijuana increases the appetite of the user in a phenomenon known as the "munchies". Marijuana also has a positive effect on nausea. Both of these are huge problems with patients after a round of chemotherapy radiation. The counter to this is that other drugs also work on nausea and they work better. This is the equivalent of saying we should criminalize Advil because Tylenol works better. It also ignores the fact that a person may as well do marijuana. Who does the congress think it is? Where does it get off telling people what they cannot have even if it doesn't have medical benefits. If it has even an ounce of medical benefit, why not allow people to do it? If my doctor thinks that meth is a good way to cure something, why does the government get to say that that's an illegal treatment? Doctors know more about drugs than congressmen. Doctors should be able to prescribe literally anything, the least of which is marijuana. The bottom line is that marijuana is not addictive and not toxic. It can help patients getting through a sickness, so it should be allowed. I look forward to my opponent's response. Sources: (1)http://drugwarfacts.org... number 6. (2)http://www.justice.gov... (3)http://norml.org...
Medical Marijuana

I hope to help 16kadams in his/her attempt to start a career in politics. I have seen him/her participate in several debates. I saw one debate on this topic in which the person who posted it only allowed a 10 minute period to post arguments so that rounds were automatically forfeited. I hope he/she accepts this invitation and I look forward to the debate. Round 1 is acceptance. I will be arguing that medical marijuana should be allowed, so the burden of proof will be on me to show why it should be allowed. My opponent will be asked either to point out why I have failed to prove my point or to prove me wrong.
An all out religious war in Syria is inevitable.

I disagree. I will take your words for exactly what you stated, and so we will begin with the broad statement you stated that to move forward and progress there must be a religious war between the majority of "major" countries. I will assume that by you saying "progress" and "move forward", you mean that the country of Syria be restored to peace in which the thousands upon thousands of refugees whom have fled the country in fear of their life and well being, be able to return to their life in their home country. It must be mentioned that in this debate we will not say that there also be a motive to improve the terrible human rights issues that have been spotlighted for years, but instead return the country to a type of "status quo." And by your statement, you are saying that for this to be accomplished, for peace to be restored, there must be a religious war between Syria and multiple other countries. I will first contend the statement, "Religious War", in which I believe this is not what will restore peace and stability to a country already in unrest. Not only are you imposing a war between Syria and other countries, but that it will be stated we are not just at war with an unethical leader, but with the religion of the innocent civilians. To constitute a "Religious War" would be declaring war on the country, the minority terrorist group of ISIS that is a radical Islamic group that kills even other professing and practicing Muslims. In this war, you are saying it is a war on all - Syrians tyrannical leaders, innocent Syrian Muslims, and radical terrorist groups touting a religious name. To do the above stated would then cause even more unrest in that countries with people of faith of the same faith being waged war on, also feel instating a sense of fear. And also relinquish to a backlash of others forming militias in the name of their religion to wage war on the "Major Countries." It would also, for the United States, be for the first time in history declaring, "We Are Run By The Religion Of Christianity." And thus, in opposition of the Constitution of The United States imposing no religious aspects, starting a war within our own country of pitting the peaceful Christian against his humble Muslim neighbor. Lastly, to declare a "Religious War" would put citizens of our country that is founded on individual liberties and freedoms, in direct opposition of the country if they do not profess the same ideology and stance. It would impose that all American citizens profess they are "Christians". To do this would cause such unrest and collapse of Syria, but also innocent civilians and groups within our own country of the United States. To declare a "Religious War" would be detrimental to the national safety of American citizens both home and abroad. A religious war is not the only way forward, and more so would get the opposite effect of what is even wanted to be completed. It would be completely futile.
The gas powered car was the worst invention ever.

My opponents arguments are almost laughable.It doesn't matter if the accident problem can be fixed in the future. The damage has already been done.The debate is "The gas powered car was the worst invention ever."Not "The gas powered car will turn out to be the worst invention ever." My opponent claims "there is no direct link between the actual invention of gasoline powered automobiles and death"Where is the evidence for that? What backs that up?My opponent makes the claim "Millions of people travel safely by car every day"That is the "ad populem" fallacy. That doesn't change the fact that millions die from accidents every year from gas powered cars.My opponent says " Unless my opponent can show that they (gas powered cars) are less safe than any other type of powered car.As a matter of fact, I canhttp://www.teslamotors.com...My opponent wants to say that gas powered cars provide more good then harm. A planet destroyed by global warming is far worse than anything good a gas powered car can do. My opponent claims that "Gas powered cars are a vital key in evacuating people before natural disasters."He fails to mention that electric cars can do the same thing.Then my opponent wants to compare Recreational Tobacco to gas powered cars.The thing is, tobacco is not an invention. It is a discovery. Things that grow naturally are not invented. They happen by nature. We are talking about inventions here, not discoveries.I'm sorry, but my opponent failed to make any valid points.The gas powered car is, in fact, the worst invention ever.