BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana

I am against Marijuana. I feel that society is too under the influence with drugs that we miss the important topics. Throughout this debate I will express my reasons why Marijuana should remain illegal and I hope my opponent provides his or her feedback as to why they think that Marijuana should in-fact be legalized and than be able to link an argument to my standing point and I will do the same. Thank you to my opponent. My first point is Marijuana users mostly teenagers drive around under the influence and cause a threat to many members of society. But before we get into this we have to be aware of the effects of Marijuana. http://www.drugabuse.gov... "Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that, in chronic users, marijuana's adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time." This is a basic view of what marijuana does to the body and mind. A main point from that paragraph that I want to bring up is the part where it states "distorted perceptions" Now if a person is driving and there perception is distorted wouldn't it be dangerous for a person who is under the influence to get behind the wheel? http://www.drugabuse.gov... "One study found that about 34 percent of motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a Maryland trauma center tested positive for 'drugs only' " 34 percent is a tremendous amount of car crashes in relation to drugs and it definitely is a threat to sober drivers on the road. Seeing these results can be fatal to anyone on the road even the person using illicit drugs. The article also states: "Studies conducted in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana." The fear I have of marijuana in this statement is the amount of people dying because people want to get a quick superficial high or happiness and than in the end pay severe consequences that unfortunately result in death. There should be no reason why these percents should even exist if the abusers can't have a good time or need this drug than they shouldn't put other people at risk. Marijuana can affect the mind and body and it should remain illegal because not only does it do harmful effects to yourself it causes harm to others around. Not just physical either it causes emotional trauma to find out if a friend or family member has acquired a habit with drugs. This is only one point that I have on the topic of marijuana and I hope that my opponent sparks up new information and their own personal insight to keep this debate going once again I thank you.
Stairway to heaven is a fraud!

YOU SIR, (or ma'am, sorry if you're a woman. It would be rather shallow of me to automatically assume you're a man) have pissed me off. Because now you've put me in a position where I have to defend those $hitbags, because what you're saying is absolute tripe. I will go ahead and assume that you're not a musician, or at least you don't understand the process of recording, because it would be impossible to make a coherent message in the reverse when you record. That myth is sooooooo lame by the way! Although, I do agree with you. I wish hell were a real place because led Zepplin belongs there.
Stairway to heaven is a fraud!

You do know what that song is about right? Pan? The satanic half goat, half man creature who plays the pan flute? from the song; "The pipers calling you to join him'. So Led Zeppelin is themselves worshipers of Satan and other God's. So why are you surprised or upset that they got away with stealing a song? Who is their master? At the end of the day, it's Satan! This also explains their success. Just as Satan promised to give Jesus the Kingdoms of the world if he worshiped him, Bands that do their masters bidding are also rewarded with money and fame. So who cares if they stole it or not. They will all burn in hell anyway.
Stairway to heaven is a fraud!

Led Zepplin were known for lifting entire riffs from black blues artists because they knew those artists wouldn't have the money to bring them to court. Now, because of their unexplainable success, they have amassed large amounts of money to sue others who use the riffs they themselves lifted. Spirit was the obviously the people who led zepplen ripped off to create their most iconic "masterpiece" stairway to heaven. Givin the fact that Led Zepplins success came from ripping off other artists , I assert that they have nothing culturally viable to offer society and should be disregarded and forgotten as the no talent hacks they are. Brian May was a far more talented guitarist than whatever that hacks name from led Zepplin was. Queen didn't just have a better guitarist, they had a better everything than led Zepplin. That's not saying much though, because led Zepplin was so $hiity, I'd say nilly vanilly was better than dred Zepplin. The decision of the courts that led Zepplin did not rip off stairway to heaven was an ill informed decision made by people with no real understanding of music, and were more interested in appeasing the rich white rock "musicians" known as led Zepplin. The song "Taurus" , from the band spirit, was the true orgin of the riff led Zepplin stole.
Public Burning at Stake should be used as a Death Penalty

*9spaceking walks across a snowy mountain top as piano music begins to playThe debate on DDO ends tonightNot an argument to be seenEnvisage started this debatebut he did not really have timeI'm winning, wipin' him off the mattHad to made this parody cuz' this song was in my head.Well here I go, for now, it may not be good.......!Envy loses, Evy loses,He didn't have enough timeeeeeeeEnvy lost, evy lost,The time-managing debater is goneeeeeHere I ammmmmmmIn this won debateeeeeJudges please vote meeeeeeeeeA free win never bothered me anywayIt's interesting how this debateIs the first one he quitAnd such a low-caliber debater as meHe should've at least tried something!But something came up,Something important I bet,That forced him to give up,I can understand, perfectly, you seeeeee............! Envy loses, Evy loses,He didn't have enough timeeeeeeeEnvy lost, evy lost,The time-managing debater is goneeeeeHere I ammmmmmmIn this won debateeeeeJudges please vote meeeeeeeee*a massive castle grows out of the groundMy arguments grow up like a skyscraper into the skyyyydemolishing his rather empty field, crushin' em like fireflieeeesHis red round is like a free gift to meeeeeeeeI've won this debate for sure, because I am too awesome!!!!Envy loses, Evy loses,He didn't have enough timeeeeeeeEnvy lost, evy lost,The time-managing debater is goneeeeeHere I ammmmmmmIn this won debateeeeeJudges please vote meeeeeeeeeA free win never bothered me anyway
Public Burning at Stake should be used as a Death Penalty

Today's a sad sad day And he's up at the bay A mysterious time to go away Won't you sa-ay He forfeited one round Openin' himself to my pounds Easily could lose As he snooze(s) Heyyyyyyy Sir Local-wide I'm 9spaceking Elade makin' beings scream cling bling Nothin' is gonna gonna stop me top dog yo leadin' the microphone Zappin' poppin' off his sockets Shoot him off a rocket Mark my words haha let's not darken it Today's a sad sad day And he's up at the bay A mysterious time to go away Won't you sa-ay?He's only survivin'Cuz I'm Goin'Super easy on himBut he's still stuck on death's brim.... Oh yes, he forfeited one round Openin' himself to my pounds Easily could lose As he snooze(s) Today's a sad sad day And he's up at the bay A mysterious time to go away Won't you sa-ay? Bum Bum Bum-ba bum bum bum bum-baSnooze snooze snoozelose lose lose loseRound round round roundpound pound pound poundsad day sad dayGoin' away, goin' awaysway sway sway swayNothing-tooo-stop-meeee nowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww------!He forfeited one round Openin' himself to my pound Easily could lose As he snooze(s) Today's a sad sad day And he's up at the bay A mysterious time to go away Won't you sa-ay? He forfeited one round Openin' himself to my pound Easily could lose As he snooze(s) (slow) Poor Envisage...forfeited uno round Opening up for getting zound,,,,, Learn your lessons my friend and don't lose By nodding your head off and then snooze....
Tennessee Democrats apparently don't want to take their own medicine after disregarding concerns

There was very little in the way of complaint from Democrats about under-representation of rural Tennessee and East Tennessee back when they drew the districts and drew them to manufacture Democratic majorities that were padded at best and an outright fabrication of reality at worst. Now that it is time to administer the medication to the patient-Tennessee's electoral system-that Democrats made sick with years of neglect and taking their majorities for granted, Tennessee Democrats do not want to take their medicine. As they know very well from experience, the party that runs the General Assembly calls the tune in Tennessee-see how we felt all those years?
History Revisited #004: Indian Removal Act of 1830

I regret that my opponent was unable to post his final round and hope he recovers from his migraines. I will briefly summarize why I have won this debate. Moral Framework: Pro has offered no defense of his moral framework, nor does his framework provide a means to evaluate the depravity of US foreign policy. Thus judges ought to evaluate the extent to which acts are morally depraved based on a) the extent to which they are motivated by concerns contrary to human flourishing and b) the extent to which they harmed actual human flourishing. IRA: I have shown that the motivations behind the IRA where not contrary to human flourishing. The IRA was motivated by a concern for the security of the U.S., i.e. the safety and prosperity of a large growing nation. The IRA was a response to factors outside the control of the federal government- the U.S. was forced to act by Georgia state policies that were injurious to the Indians and the federal government. The IRA harmed the society of the Indians, but bodily harm was limited and the harm done to Indian society was inevitability. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: I have shown that dropping the bomb was unnecessary since there were several military alternatives to winning WWII and the Japanese were already defeated by the time the bomb was dropped. I have shown that the bomb resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians, women and children and permanently altered global psychology. Dropping the atomic bomb caused massive and unnecessary harm; this is morally depraved. I have also shown that use of the atomic bomb came out of motivations totally contrary to human flourishing. Use of the atomic bomb came out of a psychology of “total war” which allows any and all means to achieve military victory. This decouples critical evaluation of the morality and efficacy of violence from warfare. The decision-making process involved in dropping the bomb shows that decision-makers were not considering the welfare of mankind and were instead operating under bureaucratic momentum. Philippines I have shown that the motivation for the occupation of the Philippines was imperialism marked by a desire to increase the prosperity of the U.S. at the expense of indigenous peoples in the Philippines. The U.S. carried out the occupation in a cruel manner, institutionalizing violence and racism towards native people. The institutionalization of acts such as torture are especially harmful to human flourishing since institutionalization normalizes cruelty, coerces individuals to act cruelly against their will, and is more difficult to eradicate than isolated incidents of cruelty. Hundreds of thousands of native Filipinos died due to the occupation. Additionally, the U.S. betrayed its allies in occupying the Philippines. Conclusion: The damage done by the occupation of the Philippines and the dropping of the atomic bomb is orders of magnitude greater than that done by the IRA. Additionally, the IRA was motivated by at least partly ethical motivations. The use of the atomic bomb was marked by amoral motivations and the occupation of the Philippines by imperialism.
History Revisited #004: Indian Removal Act of 1830

I apologize but I will not be able to finish this debate. I have had migraines on and off this week for some strange reason starting Tuesday. I struggled to post the last two rounds. I started typing a few hours ago and just deleted it all because I could not concentrate. When I started the debate I wasn't sick but I have started getting more sick, my headache is too bothersome, and I definitely won't be able to finish. Again my apologies.
Dota 2 is Better than League of Legends - Debate II

I felt that with your previous argument your opponent was very underwhelming. I want to challenge you in the same topic again, this time I will prove that Dota 2 is the superior game. I will be arguing in favor of Dota 2. Round 1 is acceptance, Round 2 is opening statements, 3 is rebuttals, and the conclusion is round 4. If you accept, I wish good luck to you.
It is scientifically probable that the Earth is "young"

Thanks, Pro. My final responses are as follows: I para-phrased the definition of a year, and my opponent gives the actual definition (from thefreedictionary.com) as follows: "The period of time during which Earth completes a single revolution around the sun [its local star]..." ((the rest of the definition is irrelevant for this debate)). Let's compare mine:"...the name we give to the time it takes for our planet, the Earth, to complete one orbit of its star; called the Sun." I think my definition was correct, unless Pro wishes to argue tedious semantics. My opponent bases his whole argument off of this:"It"s not the rotations that count but it is the time those rotations take."No. First, the time it takes for the Earth to complete one rotation is called a "day", not a "year". I think my opponent means revolution. In any case, assuming my opponent meant revolution, I can now change it to:"It"s not the [revolutions] that count but it is the time those [revolutions] take." Even changing rotations to revolutions doesn't validate this argument. My opponent has changed his burden here. We're not debating on how long it takes; we are debating how many revolutions it has completed; because (for this debate) we are talking about the age. ((However, in other circumstances; I might have agreed with you.)) The time it takes is specified for our planet alone, but the core definition - the fixed part - is the revolution. The time it takes will change with every planet, depending on it's density, size, velocity etc...So, a year for Mars is: "The period of time during which Mars completes a single revolution around the sun, consisting of ~687 days[1]" I hope my opponent understands that the definition of a year, while involving the time it takes, is partially irrelevant in this context. Why? We're talking on past tense, how many it has completed. So whether it completed in one second per year or 500 days per year is irrelevant. As such, my opponent has changed the burden of proof and violated the rules. Also, now that this error is pointed out, my opponent's whole argument topples. I believe he changed the definition to make his argument work - and it might - if that is present tense. However, it isn't. We are talking past tense.Therefore, my opponent's argument is refuted. Extend my arguments. Only thing left to do is to sign off then. I would like to extend a thank you to my opponent, leandro.sanchez, for this stimulating and enlightening debate. While he didn't meet his burden; he did show how aging is relative! Another thank to the audience and the voters for reading this through; and a final thanks to the voters for voting! I'll see you all around!JSource(s):[1]http://www.universetoday.com...PLEASE TAKE NOTE: I hate to stress this to my opponent but after a previous violation in another debate involving Creationism (wasn't lean that violated the rules, but I will stress this anyway); please take note of rule number two. Serious note, I don't want a repeat that would violate you conduct!
It is scientifically probable that the Earth is "young"

Thanks to Pro for his responses; allow me to utterly refute it after some research. ;)So, right, yes, OK! Age is relative. I consent that. I have been very bad at putting across what I meant to. TAKE THREE! So, I have consented that age is relative. Fine. But does that mean that the Earth is young? Nope. Let me show you why.What is a year? A "year" is the name we give to the time it takes for our planet, the Earth, to complete one orbit of its star; called the Sun. So, for my opponent's contention to be correct, he must show how the Earth has completed both ~4.5 billion orbits and between 5,700-10,000 orbits [and no more]. Has he done this? No. He has shown how space-time is relative, and thus how age can be relative. But since these potentials don't apply to the Earth, he cannot show how relatively, the Earth has completed different numbers of orbit. I walk around in a circle. One orbit. I do it again. Two.I do it again etc...I do it six thousand times. Six thousand orbits. I do it ~4.5 billion times. ~4.5 billion orbits. I cannot have two different numbers. Now, age can be relative in the sense that depending on one's velocity, time dilation can occur. But he has not shown how this has happened to the Earth. It's like saying how oxygen can be solid, therefore the oxygen in my neighbours' kitchen is solid. Yes, oxygen can be solid, but that doesn't mean it all is. I notice how my opponent has not attempted to counter my contentions, therefore I extend them. He has withheld comment on my point that should the Earth be all ages at once, his burden of probability is impossible. I'll leave it at that for now; and I eagerly await my opponent's response(s)!
It is scientifically probable that the Earth is "young"

I hope we can benefit from it! "Einstein[']s theory proves time to be relative:. http://science.howstuffworks.com...;This is something we agree on; I won't attempt to counter it, nor should I. "What is age? How much time you [have] exist[ed]"Close enough. Well, I fail to see how age can be relative because the present is relative. Age is past tense. Your age is fixed at a certain point. No. Your age is not relative. Fixed. Now your aging can be affected by time dilation, as Einstein demonstrated. However, your age is fixed. If it was, Einstein would have shown how age was relative, but he didn't, as my opponent pointed out. Einstein showed us how space-time is relative. Not age. Age is past tense. However, let us consider for a moment if my opponent was correct. What would that mean? Well, it would make his burden impossible. Why? Because of the word "probable" in the title. If my opponent is correct and the Earth is young here and old there and exploding somewhere else; then everything is the same and equal. Meaning that, according to the definition of probability as agreed upon by my opponent means more likely than any other option. However, if my opponent is correct, then it is not probable. Therefore, my opponent cannot meet his burden. For both our sakes, let's hope he is incorrect in this. Now, onto my arguments. Contention One: Dendrochronology. For those that don't know, dendrochronology is "tree-ring dating"[1]. Now, if I can just show that the Earth is at the least 10,001 years old, then I have fulfilled my burden. But I can do better than one year older than fits the definition of young. I give the King Clone desert bush as my example, thought to be ~11,700 years old[2]. Contention Two: Corals. Corals are much older than 10,000 years old in general. One of the oldest is the Great Barrier Reef itself! It is thought to be at least 40,000 years old, but it could be as old as 20,000,000 years old[3]! I will leave it at that, because I think my opponent won't try to refute my contentions. I think we will continue to go down the "relativity" route. Nevertheless, to fulfill my burden, these two contentions are here. Thanks everyone! See you next round! Source(s):[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Long-Lived Clones in the Mojave Desert, Frank C. Vasek, American Journal of Botany, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Feb. , 1980), pp. 246-255[3]. http://www.greatbarrierreef.org...
It is scientifically probable that the Earth is "young"

Hello mystic egg I will answer to your debate by proving that age is relative . Einsteins theory proves time to be relative: http://science.howstuffworks.com... What is age? How much time you exist and if the time that you existed is relative than age is also relative. If age is relative than the age of the earth is also relative. For us earth is around 4 billion years old but in an other place in the universe it could be 10.000 years old.
It is scientifically probable that the Earth is "young"

Hello, everyone!Welcome to this debate, which is going to focus on one particular aspect of Creationism - the young Earth aspect. ((I appreciate some Creationists can be "old-Earth" etc..., but for the sake of this when I say "Creationist" think of "young-Earth Creationist". When I say "Creationism" think of "young-Earth Creationism.")) So, what do I mean by "young"? I mean between 5,700 and 10,000 Earth years old. This cannot be changed and you accept this is what I mean by "young" by accepting the debate.Scientifically probable means that Pro and Con must use science to meet their respective burdens. Probable = more likely than any other option. (For the sake of this debate). The rules are as follows:1) The first round is not for acceptance only; Pro must present his/her case in the first round. 2) In the fifth round, Pro must state (and only state): "No argument posted here as agreed".3) The burden of proof is on Pro to demonstrate how the Earth is (scientifically) young. The burden of proof is on Con to counter Pro's contentions and show how the Earth (scientifically) is not young. 4) A forfeit is a loss of conduct; a forfeit is only a loss of conduct.5) There can be no "Vote Pro" or "Vote Con" at the end of the debate unless one of the debaters consented.6) Sources are considered accurate unless proved to be otherwise. ((Therefore, Wikipedia, TalkOrigins, AnswersInGenesis etc... are considered accurate, although the reliability of the sources will be up to the voters.))I believe that's all, so if anyone has any questions, please post a comment! Otherwise, good luck to all, and allez!
Barack Obama is worse than Hillary clinton

Barack Obama may have made a few mistakes but he helped the American economy a lot more than Hillary Clinton has. Hillary Clinton was responsible for Benghazi (1). Barack Obama helped bail out GM motors and save the American vehicle market (2). (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... I also think that I should say your BoP is on you and not me. You didn't make very strong arguments. Barack Obama may have caused problems to some parts of the world but he has on balance helped the United States very much.