BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of marijuana

1. Marijuana is a GatewayMy opponent does admit that the Yale study did find a correlation between Marijuana use and harder drugs. "The study found that, among both men and women, those who had used marijuana were 2.5 times more likely than those their age who abstained to later dabble in prescription drugs." [1] This was further backed up by the government report by the department of health and human resources. [2] It is true that there is no in-text sources on that single page, but there is their references on the pamphlet they make which contains all the information I gave my opponent. [3] Also, it seems very logical to conclude that because most people take marijuana for the high effect, that if they are no longer getting that same effect they want because of a built up tolerance that they will try harder drugs to get that effect.My opponent claims that prohibition might have encouraged greater use of drugs that are even more dangerous than marijuana. First, I would just want to point out this is totally speculative, and is very hypocritical to use speculative information after claiming my stance was speculative. Secondly, states with decriminalization/medical marijuana have higher rates of use than states that don't. [4] 2. Marijuana has bad health effectsI am looking forward to my opponents response.3. Use of Marijuana is Immoral"For Utilitarianism to work in this situation, we must identify a common purpose and setting for it's use." I never heard of that. I would appreciate if you would give a link on how to use Utilitarianism correctly if you don't go by just the definition. Anyways, in your example you give they are using it for stress relief or to get high. This fits in with the gateway theory that the person will build up a tolerance and will need harder drugs for stress relief. You assume this effects no one, but this is not true. There are vast number of possible effects this could have such as second hand smoke, significantly increase possibility of accidents, or a worse stress feeling when the marijuana wears off. You have no idea of what could happen as effects of marijuana use.As for Kant you are mistaken that "only becomes immoral when they intend to affect someone", Kant thought suicide [5], and non-procreative sex was wrong. [6]4. Legalization would increase the number of children having access to it Your source for the study you listed says nothing you quoted in there at all. Anyways "data collected by the University of Michigan on behalf of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), is reporting a rise in the illicit use of marijuana among high school students." [7]I will save points 5-7 for my next round.Sources[1] http://www.ctpost.com...[2] http://www.samhsa.gov...[3] http://www.scribd.com... (slide 23 for references)[4] http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...[5] http://www.siue.edu...[6] http://tinyurl.com...[7] http://www.chillicothegazette.com...
It would be just for the US to use military force to prevent the aquisition of nukes.

Alright friendo this is what I'm saying. The reason why terrorist groups in the Middle East and countries like Iran dislike us and are threatening to destroy us is because of our foreign policy of the last 35 years. If we minded our own business much like the founding fathers warned us to, we would not have to deal with these anti-American threats. However, we had to butt into their affairs and now we have to deal with those consequences. An anti-American fever is spreading in the Middle East and our list of enemies is increasing day by day. Do I believe nuclear weapons will lead to our extinction? Yes, I very strongly believe that, but do I believe that the US alone can stop this? No, not at all. And if we believe this we are doomed. I feel that as a world with many countries in agreement, we can end this nuclear threat. However, the USA alone trying to take on this will eventually lead to our downfall. And by the way, we are not the lone superpower anymore. China, India and the European Union I think have joined us and we should be in cooperation with them before we tackle a mission this big. And also, we do not want to be that hegemon because all hegemons in the past have failed, such as the Netherlands in the 1700's and Great Britain in the !800's And when you said I did not have a plan, I do indeed. My plan is in a world agreement to get rid of nuclear weapons for good, the powers around the world will take on terrorist groups so they will not perpetrate terrorist acts. Not the USA by itself, but as part of an alliance. And after the world is somewhat safe, we get the hell out of there and remained isolated for as long as we can.
It would be just for the US to use military force to prevent the aquisition of nukes.

First off, your arguments about the middle east are invalid since they are the ones that would be acquiring the nuclear weapons. If we were to invade the Middle East to prevent the acquisition, it wouldn't matter because they would be our enemies, not our allies. You also didn't respond to the fact that the proliferation and acquisition of nuclear weapons would lead to extinction. You also haven't responded to the fact that the United States is the only country that is capable of stopping this proliferation, and looking back at my observation, you didn't respond to the fact that military force must be used. You also didn't really respond to the fact that if the terrorist nations in the world get a hold of nuclear weapons, they will undoubtedly use them on the United States except on agreeing that we must step in to not let the nukes get into the hands of terrorists. That is what this debate is about so I win right there. Lets summarize: -You agree that we must stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons. -You agree that the US is the only one capable. -You agree that military force is the only option. -You completely agree with my stance, the only argument you had was that the US shouldn't be the ones doing it because of the hegemony issue, but you also agreed that we are the only ones capable. I have also solved the issue of hegemony. - I also have a plan to solve, unlike you so i win from that perspective. PLEASE REVIEW ALL OF MY POINTS BEFORE VOTING. THANK YOU AND VOTE AFFERMATIVE!!!
It would be just for the US to use military force to prevent the aquisition of nukes.

Yes, however hegemony has its limits. The USA is now, thanks to their aggressive foreign policy, not only in countries they have a rocky relationship with ( the Middle East) but also allies, like many European nations. I almost received a beating in an Irish Pub in 2004 just for being American. They feel that we are too proud and that we act like we rule the world. Instead, we make sure when going into countries to get rid of terrorism, we make sure the rest of the world, especially our allies, are content with it. Now my policy has always been we have to stay out of foreign affairs, much like our founding fathers. However, past leaders have screwed that up in the Middle East and now we must deal with the consequences.
It would be just for the US to use military force to prevent the aquisition of nukes.

Hegemony is defined as: economic and military dominance. As the world hegemon, it is not only reccomended but neccesary for US to police the world. If you disagree with this point, you disagree with the fact that the US is the world hegemon. At that point I would like to ask who is then. Hegemony is good for two reasons: 1) It prevents war. Power and influence are needed for war - Hegemony allows for one country to have all of the poewr and it can't obviously nuke itself so hegemony prevents war. 2) Hegemony prevents Hobbsian Nature. Thomas Hobbes looked at the world through a realistic viewpoint - if there is no power within the world then society and governments work as every man for himself. Hegemony takes the world out of this and brings the world together because one country keeps the others stable. It is our duty to police the world then. It is our obligation since the obligation of the US is to protect the rights of it's people through the Social Contract Theory. The rights are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. You also agreed to the terrorism argument so you agree that if we allow the terrorists to get a hold of them, extinction will occur, but never solved the problem. My question is, if military force won't work, what will? To respond to the declining our nukes argument, we are currently declining our nukes. Russia and the US both agreed to half their nukes by 2012. We are declining, so that argument is void.
It would be just for the US to use military force to prevent the aquisition of nukes.

Yes but this need to "police" the world is extremely hypocritical of the USA. I agree with you that a country or an alliance of countries must step up to ride the world of nuclear weapons so none get in the hands of terrorists, but the USA and many other countries must first get rid of theirs. If every nuclear power just ends their nuclear programs today, many problems would be solved. Instead of almost going to wars with North Korea and Iran over nuclear weapons, why not get rid of the ones we have? That is why these countries are reaching out to get weapons, because they need to keep up with technology in order to be power in the world today. They feel threatened without them while 15 or so other countries have them.
There are no absolutes.

First, I would like to show my opponent took the position "There are absolutes--morally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually" by using the word "and" they claim all of those categories have absolutes. By defining their position it implicitly defines mine as "there are not absolutes--morally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually"1. PhysicalAbsolutes are knowledge, and knowledge comes from our sensory. However, our senses are fallible; therefore, our knowledge is fallible. Because our sense are fallible we can not know anything for certain. This was presented by Descartes [2]. Further, can you be absolutely sure you are not in a Matrix? Because you can't know for certain you can't know for certain if anything around you actually exist. Further is there really any object? If you imagine and apple you probably think of something round, red, shiny. However, these are all properties, and there is no real object just properties that your fallible senses experience. This is called bundle theory [1]. 2. SpirituallyThere are many religions, and they all teach different things, but my opponent did not give any examples of any absolutes. Instead they tell you how they are all very different and contradictory.3. MoralsFirst, just because you never heard anything bad about a certain thing doesn't mean people don't think it was a morally good thing. A pedophile does not think it is wrong, just like a Nazi does not think Nazism is wrong. If morality is objective then why do people debate moral subjects like abortion or Homosexual marriage? Sources[1] . http://bewarephilosophy.weebly.com...[2] . http://plato.stanford.edu...
There are no absolutes.

I accept this interesting challenge. I hope this can be a fun debate.I will wait for my opponent to present arguments why they think there are absolutes morally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually in the next round.I would like to make a few notes.1. The Burden of Proof should be shared since we are both making claims.2. If I can prove that at least one of those categories named by my opponent's position doesn't have absolutes then I will win this debate.
There are no absolutes.

I have been reading a lot of philosophy books lately, and I thought this would be a fun topic to debate with someone. I actually am really curious as to what the Pro side of this debate believes and would argue to support their position. So I hope somebody accepts the challenge to debate this with me. Setup: Round 1 is acceptance by Pro, and Pro can make his initial arguments. Round 2 is constructive/rebuttal argumentation by both sides, and Round 3 is purely rebuttal argumentation. My (Con's) basic position in this round: There are absolutes--morally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually. Good luck to my opponent. Let the debates begin! :)
There are no absolutes.

If my opponent's position was that there are no absolutes morally, physically, intellectually, or spiritually, no rational person would have taken this debate because they would be taking a self contradicting statement. The statement there is no absolutes are in fact an absolute. The self-defined position defines what the debate is about more than the title. Titles are often vague and is narrowed by the positions. For example, if the title was "Gay Marriage" but the positions is that laws restricting gay marriage are unconstitutional. Just like in this case the title there are no absolutes is narrowed by the morally, physically, intellectually, and spiritually. Moral: If moral absolutes exist like mathematics, then we should all know. What is this source greater than a single human or group of humans? God? However, that isn't even agreed upon, no absolute, if God even exists. Just because someone says something is bad that is what they think is moral or not is nothing greater than themselves but rather their worldview. This is why you can find people who disagree on moral questions like euthanasia or abortion. If Genocide was an absolutely morally wrong, then why did the Nazis or Soviets think it was ok to do so? Justice isn't an absolute either, since cases are overturned all the time if anything, it shows how morality was formed by the culture of the time. Physical: Just because there are words on the screen doesn't mean there is another conscience behind the words because you cannot prove they are truly conscience and not some part of your subconscious producing a hallucination. "I admit that you have no basis for these absolutes if you do not accept the absolute existence of an infinite-personal God who is orderly and who has revealed Himself to mankind. " So, this one actually depends if there is a spiritual absolute that God exist which was not proved in this debate. Spiritual: If my opponent can't name one absolute then how does my opponent know there are absolutes? If you claim that hell exist is an absolute then you must prove it, and if it was why doesn't everyone agree or know? However, if I my opponent just state either XYZ exist or doesn't think this should be in the intellectual absolutes and not the Spiritual ones, but this could also be a false dichotomy like saying abortion is wrong or it is not there is possible gray area.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

1) Gaining through experience "you may become physically weaker, but you are adding experience and while becoming weaker, you are also in some way becoming stronger" The statement "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" does not actually mention becoming weaker, only that you have been made stronger. So like you said, the losing of multiple limbs is probably a far greater thing than a single learned lesson, but that does not erase the fact that you have indeed learned a lesson. See, the way this phrase is worded, it does not mention anything about the multiple missing limbs. It only mentions the fact that you have learned that lesson, and are in some way stronger, even though you have lost multiple limbs. Now, I know that this wording does make the phrase slightly misleading in some cases. However, this comes back to the fact that phrases like this are not meant to be interpreted in this way. And, yes, there will always be people who take things too literally. But we shouldn't compromise many of the things that make our culture just because of those people. "like I said before, this incident has added an experience to the child's life that can help it make better decisions in the future." True, but like I said before, the phrase does not mention anything about the injury. Only the experience and lessons learned. "there are always people who use things like this to put themselves in danger and to do stupid and dangerous things" However, whatever people write, there will always be these people who take it in a way that it is not meant to be taken. For example, some people think that Harry Potter books are demonic. But should we not let kids read the books because of those people? J.K Rowling never meant them to be that way and if we took them away we would be losing one of the greatest pieces of children's literature ever written. "Also, making a statement such as (being white helps) is extremely unprofessional, and I would advise you from saying something like that in the future." I am not suggesting that you be incredibly rude to people who have suffered through a lot. I am only saying that people should keep using this phrase as normal, and as far as I know, most people are not that rude. Of course you will always have some people like that, but they will always exist and we need not concern ourselves with that group. All these points I have used clearly illustrate why the phrase "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is not dangerous, and is true. And I'm not going to ask you to vote Pro. Just that you vote for whoever was the most professional and whoever defended their side of the debate the best.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

1) Gaining through experience"you may become physically weaker, but you are adding experience and while becoming weaker, you are also in some way becoming stronger"Gaining experience through an event does not necessarily erase the loss that someone suffers through that same event though. If someone loses both of their legs in a car accident and thinks to themselves "Well now I know to be more careful! " Then yeah theyve learned something but they still lost both of their legs. The losing of multiple limbs is far greater than a single learned lesson, which is why 'what doesnt kill you makes you stronger' is a misinformed and misleading sentence"like I said before, this incident has added an experience to the child's life that can help it make better decisions in the future. "But experience of getting injured is not worth suffering the injury when the injury itself is permanent or severe"I believe it is okay for people to use this phrase even if it may be considered misleading to some people"And im arguing that its not because there are a great many things that if they dont kill you will indeed leave you weaker than before. "there are always people that use things like this to put themselves in danger and to do stupid and dangerous things"And the statement in the debate resolution is ONE OF THOSE THINGS. Hence why im arguing against it. "Also, making a statement such as (being white helps) is extremely unprofessional, and I would advise you from saying something like that in the future"You know what else is extremely unprofessional? Walking up to a burn victim and saying 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger'===================================================================================The arguments above, including all the points not contested in round 1, are my reasons for explaining why tje phrase 'what doesnt kill you makes you stronger' is misleading, dangerous.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

1) Truthiness "I believe that there is some truth to the phrase "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". I think that everything people go through adds to their experience and that experience in some small way makes you stronger. This is how I can say that there is "some" truth to the phrase; you may become physically weaker, but you are adding experience and while becoming weaker, you are also in some way becoming stronger. Yes, as you are saying, you may become weaker overall, but I think that technically if you are made stronger with every added experience, you have fulfilled the statement "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". 2) Evolution "They touch the oven, get burned, cry, and then in time, realize they shouldn't do that again." First of all. second degree burns, since they only affect the epidermis and dermis, won't cause things like nerve damage or loss of movement. Most second degree burns can be treated at home (depending on the area of skin the burn covers) and unless it gets infected, will probably cause some scarring but nothing very serious. I get what you meant though, and like I said before, this incident has added an experience to the child's life that can help it make better decisions in the future. 3) Banning the phrase I believe it is okay for people to use this phrase even if it may be considered misleading to some people. This is because is helps us be hopeful about the future. "Like most phrases and saying that we use, it is not meant to be pulled apart, analyzed, and taken literally." I think when most of these phrases are coined, they are not meant to be thought of in that way. However, there are always people that use things like this to put themselves in danger and to do stupid and dangerous things. This is something that I don't believe we can change, and if we did try to stop these people, many great quotes, phrases, and even works of literature and articles would be shunned. I think that words can be interpreted in many ways, and if someone interprets it in a way that is dangerous, it is their problem, and only theirs. "Life is a struggle" I think that life is not discriminatory, people are, and that everyone gets hard times and happy moments, no matter your race. Yes, people may be discriminating and make your life harder, but I still think that much of your outlook on life comes from within and that you do have a choice in how hard life is. Also, making a statement such as that is extremely unprofessional, and I would advise you from saying something like that in the future. "Some of what we say may be true, and some may not be." I don't think that I was actually referring to that in this statement, but my response to this is the same point I emphasized in the first and second topics.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger

1) Truthiness"I believe that there is some truth to the phrase "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger""Some? Yes. But the quote itself is substantially misleading as there are many exceptions to something that does not kill a person that still infact leaves them weaker than before, not stronger. 2) Evolution"They touch the oven, get burned, cry, and then in time, realize that they shouldn't do that again"Yes but that same oven if severely hot enough could cause 2nd degree burns to the child's hand resulting in nerve damage, loss of skin, loss of movement of the hand, etc that would make the child physically weaker, not stronger, if only temporarily3) Banning the phraseI am not advocating that the phrase should be banned, simply that it should not be endorsed by society due to its misleading qualities. "Like most phrases and sayings that we use, it is not meant to be pulled apart, analyzed, and taken literally"Except many people do and use it as a reason to put themselves in greater danger for no reason whatsoever. Its like Yolo, or Carpe Diem, or some sh** like that. "Life is a struggle"Being white helps"Some of what we say may be true, and some may not be"And I am arguing that the phrase 'What doesn't kill you makes you stronger' is NOT one of those things. It is not factually sound, there are several cases of instances and events that does not kill a person but still makes them weaker