BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
weed

org links are okay tho I goofed on that one the . gov are my enimeys. If I he says that I can't use debatepedia, but he can use the website of an organization that is funded by the government. He is being a troll because he is using a website that is funded by the government without a government endcode. Second, he also uses a website that doesn't even prove his case. The person says that weed should be illegal. He says that weed is a scapegoat, but that statement can't be proven by facts. What can be proven is that weed is dangerous. Also, if he can use a . org website that is funded by the government, then I should be able to at least be able to use a . org website as he said in bold. Also, at the bottom of the debatepedia page, it tells people where they got their information. So, it's not like they just made it up. They have proof. Second, the government doesn't influence how I think. The government says abortion is bad, but I think it is beneficial. (Viewers, do not send me a debate request about abortion. )My opponent says that I am throwing a bunch of beliefs at him but he is making random assertions. What makes one person happy makes another person upset. If a person smokes weed, that person might, be happy, but even then, there will be that one person that is mad, or let's say not happy, because of the pungent smell of weed. That is a fact. *Note* My opponent has bad grammar which is making it hard to debate against him. *Note* My opponent hasn't refuted any onf my points, so if he doesn't argue any of my points, then he should lose, that and his bad grammar.
weed

I had lost a vote or two quoting yahoo answerer, you quoted a wikipedi of debates, so no if any one can edit it meaning a 10 year old or a troll then it is invalid. For cripe saces it has a opichin to log in to edited it, if it weren't for the fact that I cant make a bloody account on the dang cite then I would of trolled the crap out of it, tho I am still trying to make a account next you thew a bunch of your beliefs at me, no fact to support it or to disassemble my augment. all so the government is using weed as a scapegoat for other issue so it gos to show that they would say or do anything to keep the public fearful. if you need the government to spoon feed you lies and tell you what to think, go join a big brother nation. all thing sad here can be backed up by my last link in round 3. and yah maybe the last guy is relates to weed but he also stated he wanted it to stay illegal, I new he was against my cuss whim I posted but thing is his shlt help me any ways and it wasn't a ,gov link so come on. if you link something make shere only the site admen can edit it, or people that git bad to monkey around the cite.
weed

My opponent said that .org websites are valid so therefore it is valid. Besides, if he can't trust the government websites, then pbs.org should be invalid, because pbs is funded by the government. As you can see, my opponent is trying to remove more valid sources, so that the only sources we can find will serve his purpose. True happiness's definition changes from person to person. There is no one level of happiness. One person's happiness could be another person's pity. Some people who are under the influence of weed can be violent people. Also, the pungent smell of weed when smoked will make people upset. The legalization of weed will make it harder for parents to explain the hazards of tobacco. Not only that, all information posted on organization's websites are edited by a community of editors. community defined - a group of people Pointer- Why would my opponent give me information on a topic completely unrelated to the debate? To make me lose!
weed

website link not valid, if i wanted i cold say weed is a taco with that site pleas sits that are not edited by the community happy can be defined, by the by so i can say it makes people happy, ad if it were legal then they be happier cuss the cops wont be on the edge of there mind. beside find me a link of some one dieing on weed. as you do that I can if you like go and find the death stuff of people dieing on ciggs and alcohol. are prisons and jails ar bing wasted on people that only do weed, nonviolent offenders. 1) http://www.pbs.org... 1)http://www.lifeoptimizer.org...
weed

Refutations My opponent said that marijuana makes people happy, but happy is an opinionated word. This statement is invalid because it needs to be supported by facts. My opponent says that it can and will help with ADHD, Alzheimer Disease, chemo therapy, and many other things, but he has not shown any proof. The link provided below talks about point three. My opponent says that it can decrease tumors, but the test that was run was on rats. Rats have a different immune system than humans and could be able to break down tumors easier than humans. Arguments Weed does tons of damage onto the lungs more than cigarettes. Weed increases the risk of receiving psychosis. Weed can damage the brain. Weed impairs the ability to produce hormones for sex. Weed impairs reaction ability, which will hinder them in driving cars. Weed can actually cause cancer. Weed has linked to many birth defects in youth. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...
weed

Opp I ment gov, I feel like a tard now, I dont trust the government because they like to lie thou there teeth more often then not. Eliminate the gov links and more the have of your arguments are gone. then all I need to defend aginst Is the bran washing bull that pollutes people org links are okay tho I goofed on that one the .gov are my enimeys. marijuana needs to be legal cuss it will make many people happy Oh yeah you can grow it it is a plant so yeah I don't need to buy it. It can and will help people with adhd alltimers cemo therapy and many other thing. All of the ingredients in weed, well most of the ingredients in weed is allreding something we have in are bodes to day. it can allso kill or decres tumors. 1) http://www.cannabissearch.com...
God is a figment of the human imagination

I will start by saying most of your rebuttal was points that I discussed in my previous argument. I will now offer my rebuttal against your argument about the old testament. Almost all of your argument is questions so I will number and answer them accordingly. 1. What language was spoken after the flood? After the flood there was just Noah and his family. They moved apart and their language began to change. We see this in america today. Some would say southern language is much different from norther language. The confusion in the bible is because of the mass amount of times that it has been translated. Over time some interpretations will change among translators. 2. Does the bible contain errors? No, the original bible contains no errors because it was written by God through people. You say the bible was twisted by man, no, only its interpretation. People pick out things and use them out of contex for their own agenda. Yes some of the material in the bible is not literal but symbolical, like revelations. This was because the author faced persecution if found writing about God, so he made it see like something else. I don't know what I'm supposed to say for my argument since I am only defending Christianity and the Bible. But I will leave with this, the old testament was made to show us our sin and to show us that we cannot fufill the word of God. The new testament is to show us that we are saved through Jesus Christ.
God is a figment of the human imagination

Ok, I will start with my rebuttal. Firstly if the world was created by God and mass was created by God, then why do we have strong evidence for the Higgs Boson? We have strong evidence that this event did occur and to prove that there has been recent findings of gravity which rippled across space seconds after the big bang. You may say that the Big Bang was created by God but how could it have been? If we have evidence for the Big Bang causing the earth to be a hot, potent planet for millions of years then how could God have created the animals and how could he have created Adam and Eve. Another point is that if God had created Adam and Eve then how come they were perfectly formed human beings from the start? Another point of rebuttal is that cavemen never lived among dinosaurs, that's a popular misconception and you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org... . They were, in fact, around 66 million years apart. Ok, Time for Round 2! We will argue the Old Testament in this round and we will have no conclusion if that's ok? You may do it differently if you so wish. In Genesis 10 the floods occur and the world is divided up by segments, divided by language. But in the next section we learn that the world speaks the same language. http://sunnahonline.com... There are many examples of this in the Old Testament and many Christians say, 'well that's the Old Testament'. They may say this but why in God's holy book has there been two stories written? You may say that the Bible was a collection of writings from different sources but doesn't that just mean the bible's less trustworthy? Also if Jesus had truly been the son of God surely he would have read the bible and corrected any mistakes. Do you not believe that religion has been twisted by the human mind? The Old Testament is a prime example of this where stories have been passed down through generations, and like Chinese whispers, the story has been twisted by the imagination and what humans want to believe. So there it is. That is why the Old Testament supports my theory and I am looking forward to your rebuttal and Round 3!
God is a figment of the human imagination

You begin with Darwin and the theory of Evolution and continue to describe it through your argument. So I presume that you will not only be trying to disprove creationism but also defend evolution. You use the example of the finches and the difference in their beaks. I full agree with this kind of evolution, also known as microevolution. I disagree with macroevolution that is the change from one species to another, whereas microevolution is only changes within one species. Macroevolution is impossible because of the very large differences between species, particularly the number of chromosomes. If a mutation does occur where the number of chromosomes is altered (down syndrome) then the person is sterile and mentally retarded. Both things that cannot continue with evolution. You also use the argument of language. You claim the first humanoids communicated with grunts and pictures. Well we have always communicated with pictures, we still do. To answer your question about what language Adam and Eve spoke, I simply don't know. The bible was originally written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramic, so I can guess it was one of those. And then theres the infamous argument about Carbon dating. In a lab enviroment it works flawlessly. But in nature, after about 10000 years, the ratio between Carbon-12 and carbon-14 is very fragile. The slightest, and I mean slightest, inbalance can lead to inaccuacies in the tens of millions and almost billions of years. Some hot ash after Mount St.Helens went off was carbon dated 3 times. These dates ranged from 100 years to over 200 million years. Similarly, a live turtle sample was taken and dated to be 10 million years old. Your last point was on fish and their similarities to humans. A theory of intelligent design is also supportive of this argument as everything is in the same conditions. To answer your last question about the ability of change it goes back to the micro-macro point. Things adapt to their situation to survive, but speciation is impossible. http://www.angelfire.com... Now for my own argument. Since I was instructed to defend creationism, I will. But first let me define "creationism". The Universe and all life was created in 6 literal 24 hour days by an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnipowerful, non material, moral God. Since he is non material he does not have time matter or space, nor does he follow its laws, therefore he can create matter out of nothing. He created all of the kinds of animals and they later evolved into their individual species and subspecies over the last 7000-10000 years. Humans were created with Gods morality in their hearts, that si why we know what is right and wrong. The cave drawings you mention have been found with dinosaurs on them. A human foot print was found next to a dinosaurs footprint as well. But the images weren't the "cavemens" imagination because they were drawn besides other, very real, animals like cows and sheep. This just proves that humans and dinosaurs lived next to each other. http://www.bible.ca... I look forward to round 2.
God is a figment of the human imagination

OK! Round 1! So Creationism... This is hotly debated topic and one which should be interesting to debate. When Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands on the HMS Beagle he discovered evolution. Using examples from finch"s beaks and turtle shells he discovered the random variation between the islands. We need to think back to many years ago when our LUCA (last universal common ancestor) was created. We have got significant proof of their being a LUCA, much more than that of Genesis being correct. Cast your mind back to a million years ago when the Neanderthal"s were spreading themselves across the world. They communicated with simple grunts, pictures (shown by cave drawings etc.) and actions. Since then we have evolved into much more complex animals which create much more complex sounds which we now call speech. According to Genesis when we Adam and Eve were created we could speak like we can today. This is obviously a huge fault as we have only been able to communicate well for around 1 million to 500,000 years. And you can"t claim that Genesis was actually between those times because we have significant proof of there being dinosaurs 65 million years ago and Carbon dating can date to much longer before 500,000 years ago accurately. My third point on Evolution is fish. I know this may sound weird but it"s got quite a bit of significance. Fish were are our ancestors. There"s, once again, significant proof of these fish being our ancestors. They had 4 bony fins and had lungs so could climb onto land. Since then how did we get from there? We have proof of these fish developing so they did not become extinct and they evolved into creatures which became solely land animals. God created everything in 7 days, he did not change what he originally put on this earth but we have evidence of change. Please, explain that?
God is a figment of the human imagination

In this debate we will be discussing the question of God. I will argue for him not being real. I want some convincing and good arguments; well thought up so please don't accept unless you are committed and will treat is seriously. Rounds: 1) Acceptance 2) Creationism 3) The Old Testament 4) The New Testament 5) Conclusion As much as 8,000 words may be written but please try to keep your writing in a concise, professional manner. Thanks, - iaminneedofhelp
The United States and States Therein Should Discontinue the Use of Capital Punishment

Hello!Capital Punishment: the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime, also known as the death penalty.Discontinue: to put an end to; stop.I will be arguing for the discontinuation of capital punishment and my opponent will be arguing for the continuation of the aforesaid. BoP is shared and first round is acceptance only.Looking forward to a good debate! :)
God is just a imaginary psychological support required for a moral living

People tell me that God is a fantasy. That it is completely stupid to believe that there is an all-powerful being that exists somewhere. They say he is no more than a fairy tale. But here is the thing. If God does not exist, Then you have to give me a rational explanation for how this universe exists. You start with nothing, Then go to this incredible universe we see today. You go from nothing too complicated life forms that contain DNA which contains more information than all the encyclopedias combined. That to me is the real fantasy.
God is just a imaginary psychological support required for a moral living

God is psychological support required for the people who fall. Its a psychological control over person, Before committing sins. Its a final support for those who lost all hopes. A person who is dying with illness and confirmed no cure by doctor has to potentially live on belief that god might extend his days. If we inhibit or create a society without knowledge of SOMETHING called God, It might face a lot psychological barriers in their growth. The ultimate internal psychological support derived from imaginary God is important to overcome bad days before committing suicide or extreme decisions. Most of the people who can't find a solution for their problem, Will reside on god, Some miracle to happen. Which may or may not. There will be lot of suicides, If there is no existence of psychological support as god, As the quick end solution would be suicide. So whether god does really exist or not, Its a must to believe to live better. I am a deist thou.
Steve Jobs is the one who changed this world who none can accomplish

JOHN CENAI sexually Identify as John Cena. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of defending my WWE championship at WWE SUPERSLAM. People say to me that a person being John Cena is Impossible and I'm fvcking retarded but I don't care, You Can't See Me. I'm having Vince McMahon inject me with Hustle, Loyalty, and Respect. From now on I want you guys to call me "Champ" and respect my right to Five Knuckle Shuffle and Never Give Up. If you can't accept me you're a cenaphobe and need to check your championship privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.
Steve Jobs is the one who changed this world who none can accomplish

STEVE JOBS HAS BROUGHT THIS WORLD TO NEXT GENERATION WHICH NO ONE ELSE COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT.HE IS ONE OF THE GREATEST PERSONALITIES IN WHICH I KNOW.IF HE WOULD HAVE LIVED FOR A FURTHER YEARS THEN THE WORLD MIGHT HAVE CHANGED IT ATMOSPHERE.HE WAS THE STEPPING STONE FOR THE OTHER TECHO-BILLIONAIRES.HE HAS SHOWED THE WAY TO THE FUTURE FOR OTHERS.HE IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ROLE MODELS INSPIRING THE COMING YOUTH FOR A BETTER FUTURE. TEVE JOBS HAS BROUGHT THIS WORLD TO NEXT GENERATION WHICH NO ONE ELSE COULD ACCOMPLISH THAT.HE IS ONE OF THE GREATEST PERSONALITIES IN WHICH I KNOW.IF HE WOULD HAVE LIVED FOR A FURTHER YEARS THEN THE WORLD MIGHT HAVE CHANGED IT ATMOSPHERE.HE WAS THE STEPPING STONE FOR THE OTHER TECHO-BILLIONAIRES.HE HAS SHOWED THE WAY TO THE FUTURE FOR OTHERS.HE IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ROLE MODELS INSPIRING THE COMING YOUTH FOR A BETTER FUTURE.
Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 is a better game than Call of Duty:Black Ops

Sorry for lack of sources and horrible grammar i am mainly using myself as a source (www.pfiregaming.com) and I'm typing very quickly. My next response will depend on how serious you are taking this debate. As of now this is what you have to work with. Camping - While it may be true that camping occurs in both games, the overall problem with it in Black Ops is that there is only 1 or two routes you can go from any given direction (Maximum 3) also, with the introduction of motion sensor campers have an INSANE advantage. Shotguns/Primary - The introduction of shotguns as a primary weapon would have been great if shotguns in Black ops were not so terribly useless. Knifing - the knifing in black ops is so ridiculous it drives me nuts. I am more likely to find a leprechaun then to experience a knifing encounter that makes any sense whatsoever. Spawning/Weapons - The spawns in black ops are just as dumb as the weapons. Spawns put you either directly behind someone or them directly behind you. There is no winning when you spawn on Black ops. Weapons are the same thing. Either the gun is WAY overpowered or way underpowered the weapons in black ops are so unrealistic its stupid. Lag - With the introduction of "In Game Buffering" and recording game play black ops has such bad latency... the game is so horribly flawed in this aspect that i had to stop playing after a few days.
Any topic!

BibleThe books of the Bible were written at different times by different authors over a period of approximately 1,500 years. The New Testament was orally passed down for approximately this long! How can you justify the credibility of it? Unless you can prove to me why the Bible is a reliable source then this is not a valid argument. Yes, the Bible speaks of people doing things, seeing God in real places, but how does this make the argument any more trustworthy? Lets look at each of these aspects separately. a) People - Naming people who have met God is not valid on its own. b) Places - If I said that there is a vampire in France would you believe me because I said that it was in France. Omnipotence and Omniscience Whilst stating that God is omnipotent and omniscient isn't really proof for his existence I would like to note a few points regarding this. God cannot be omnipotent because what would happen if God created a rock that cannot be moved by God. Could he move it? What if you told God to create a square circle? As in a physical object without him changing definitions. Regarding omniscience, the Bible clearly states that they are firm believes in free will and do not believe in determinism. If the Bible does not believe in determinism then God cannot be omniscient. Famous PeopleReligious people (and the vast majority of Americans consider themselves so) won't vote for an atheist because they think that without the fear of God, people have no reason to behave morally. I wont go into detail about why I think this is wrong because that is irrelevant to the resolution of the debate however this is proven according to scientific research and it will be sourced. In fact recent polls show that atheists are considered to be more untrustworthy than rapists in America and Britain. This study was used to explain why politicians are predominately religious. The same applies to celebreties. Studies also show that religion and belief in God significantly boosts celebraty popularity. Atheists scientists such as Professor Richard Dawkins are referred to as incarnations of the devil because they are atheists and debate on the con side of God debates. You have used inspiration as a subcategory. You have said: Can you possibly draw inspiration from nothing? Well, I never said God is nothing. I said that God is nonexistent. Superman is also nonexistent. That doesn't stop children being inspired to be determined and aspire to be like superman. You can have faith in something that is nonexistent so again this argument has been disproven. Final Paragraph I'm not sure whether to view this as a concession or not. Since this was a choose any topic debate, I find it fair that my opponent must argue the topic that I have chosen. I do not mind doing another debate regarding a more suitable topic though I do not want to abandon this debate completely.Sourceshttp://www.gotquestions.org...http://jezebel.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk...