BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cannabis

HarmCannabis does around the same harm as caffeine does, possibly less. While the DEA may have classified it to being as bad as heroin, it is clearly not the case. Heroin addiction is severe, Heroin can cause halluciations, heart issues, collapsed vines, etc. The side effects of Cannabis are more comparable to caffeine. Millions of people drink Coffee which contains a lot of caffeine. However, caffeine's side effects are a faster heart rate, anxiety, restlessness, tremors, sleeping issues, etc. Cannabis's side effects include paranoi, uncoordination, disability to drive, alertness, etc. Why should caffeine be legal for a 4 year old to take but marijuana is only legal in 4 states and more strictly regulated?PropagandaDue to anti-drug movements and the criminalization a little bit ago, a lot of propaganda about drugs has spread around. Some may say that Cannabis can cause more lung damage than alcohol, cancer and other issues. There's even a myth about it being a "gateway drug." That being said, most drug addicts start by eating fried chicken. Should we neccessarily call fried chicken a gateway drug?Medicinal UsesCannabis has many medicinal uses. The main medicinal effect I will be getting into right now is it's anti-tumour effect. Cannabinoids have been tested in labs to kill cancerous cells while leaving healthy cells alone. Current cancer treatment methods such as chemo or radiationtherapy technically kill everything, not just cancer cells. Current cancer treatments can provide severe side effects. Cannabis has some effects but they are nothing compared to current cancer medicines.Cannabinoids have been tested to kill cancer cells. Many people report success with getting rid of cancer with usage of cannabis. Smoking or vaping marijuana may not be the best method but using it orally usually has more success with medicinal uses.Abuse vs ModerationThere is a difference between using Cannabis normally and abusing it. Smoking it every day or a few times a day without a proper medical reason may not be the best idea. However, occasional usage is not that bad. People drink alcohol, a drug way worse than marijuana in moderation. Yet, many alcohol users seem to be just fine.Cannabis is also not physically addictive. People can argue that it's addictive but it's only about as addictive as going to parties. Heavy usage of cannabis may cause withdrawal symptoms while quitting. That being said, using it once doesn't risk you getting hooked the same way Heroin or Crack might.RegulationIf Cannabis is legalized, it can be regulated to make sure it's not cut up with other drugs. Black market marijuana may sometimes be cut up with other drugs. If it were legal, that could be prevented from happening. sourceshttp://www.scientificamerican.com...http://www.nlm.nih.gov...http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca...http://www.cancer.gov...http://harvardmagazine.com...
Crime and Mental Health are linked

There is a slightly higher likelihood of people with a psychotic illness to become violent but many studies suggest that this is caused by abusing drugs or alcohol, Not receiving proper treatment as a child or having a history of violent behaviour which is independent of the mental illness. Also most mental illnesses are not harmful to people around the person with the disorder. In conclusion i believe that not all crimes are linked to mental illness but sometime it can depending on that person's background and history.
Crime and Mental Health are linked

The reason why those who commit a crime who have a mental illness are on the news is because it is showing pattern. It is showing you that something is linked. They say those with mental illness are more likely to hurt themselves then others, But it is has said that those who experienced abuse during their childhood are actually more likely to abuse others. Through their tough and traumatizing childhood of abuse they are learnt and have been put into their own mind to abuse others. The crimes may be linked with poverty or homeless but with having a mental illness and being in a poor situation may cause you distress and you become desperate. With being so desperate you begin to commit crimes. Instead of trying to seek out help you commit crimes. Kleptomania may be rare but it"s still a mental disorder leading to crime. They may stay inside but if their treatment doesn"t work or if they can"t find help, Their crimes they commit may become much worse. This will lead them to a time in jail. In conclusion, I believe that mental health does have a big impact and is linked to crimes committed in this world
Crime and Mental Health are linked

Statistics have shown that half or more than half of prisoners or crime people have a mental disorder. With these statistics, It makes you think that all these similarities must mean or at least say something. Drug Use Monitoring in Australia is a program used to assess offenders the prevalence of mental disorder. Through the program is it shown that there are 1. 8 diagnoses of mental health per man and 2. 0 per women. The diagnoses data has mostly represented the majority of the offenders have a mood or anxiety disorders. In both mental illness, Women have a higher rate than men. The highest proportion of male detainees with mental disorders were among those charged with property offences. This shows that those who has committed a great crime have a mental illness. Doesn"t this show a sign? 33% of men and 46% of women reported to currently taking prescribed psychoactive medications. 70% of men have had a previous diagnoses and 83 % of women had previous diagnoses. With taking medications and having already have a mental illness shows that crime and mental health are linked. 28% of men and 41% who had a mental disorder during the previous 12 months didn"t seek help from health professionals. Without seeking for help causing their mental health to worsen and more crimes to be committed.
Crime and Mental Health are linked

Having a mental illness doesn't mean that they will commit crimes. Actually people with mental illness are more likely to be victims of crimes. People with mental illness are more likely to self harm rather than harm others around them. Most people with mental illness who commit crimes are featured in the new so these crime get stuck in peoples head but lots of smaller crimes go unnoticed by the general public, These crime usually have no relation to mental illness but are caused by poverty, Homelessness, Unemployment and substance abuse.
Crime and Mental Health are linked

We know that mental illness is a risk factor for the criminal justice system involvement. Studies have shown that majority if offenders have mental disorders. Through this high statistics it has shown that this pattern is proving that mental health does have an affect/impact on crime. Kleptomania, Is a rare mental health that causes people to have the inability to resist urges to steal. Kleptomania is a type of impulse control disorder and many people have difficulty to resist the temptation. Crime with people who are Kleptomaniac is very high. Their urge is steal is so powerful that it is hard extremely hard to control. They steal from public places such as stores and supermarkets or even steal from their friends. It is known that two-thirds of people who have Kleptomania are women and usually have more than one mental disorder. Kleptomania does not have a cure and those who usually have it are in jail meaning that they are not able to seek help. This mental disorder is then passed down to family members causing more thefts to occur. With a mental disorder that is specifically linked to crime, Proves that mental health are linked with crime.
Objective Morality

Con may very well be right, that we are interpreting objective differently. As such, I will keep my final round as short as I can, and give a simple explanation of the conclusion I have come to.I see this statement as an apt description of that conclusion: Morality is an objective concept, but it can only be applied to life through subjectivity. In other words, morality has a constant, unchanging goal or meaning, and is therefore objective. However, the moral value of any specific action can change based on the circumstances of those to whom it's being applied, and is therefore also subjective. I will leave it that, as I honestly see no where else to go with it. Regardless of who wins this debate, it has been a very enjoyable experience. In my eyes, debate is a chance for both the audience and the debators to gain enlightenment, and I have found Cons insights to be very enlightening, and would like thank him for that. As it stands, I've come to the conclusion that we are both partially correct.
Objective Morality

I am going to try and sum all of your arguments into one rebuttal. I want to make sure we are on the right page with what we are arguing, because in a way we agree with a lot of this which will make this extremely hard for people to vote. Seeing as how this whole debate is about the perception of right and wrong or good and bad, I would like to make clear what I intended by my points and to add on to how I perceive morality as a whole. I labeled this as religion but I think it would have been better served under philosophy.In your previous argument you stated "In other words: Is a moral outcome reason enough for an immoral action? This is where there is subjectivity, as there is no concrete answer of yes or no. It depends on the outcome, on the action, and on all parties involved.""A moral compass is ones sense of right and wrong, and it's based on the guidelines by which we judge morality."By making these points you are saying saying there is a moral compass or a sense right and wrong and it exists objectively because of evolution and other factors and not because of a God. By stating that there is not right or wrong answer in a way your are admitting that there is no objective morality. You are acknowledging at this point that it is completely dependant on the situation. I understand your view of right and wrong vs moral and immoral and it is unique and individual way to look at this topic, I do believe you are admitting that morality and or good and bad can be entirely subjective, you are just separating the two definitions.You used the point that "By this, I am NOT referring to whether or not we accept morals, nor does that even apply to this debate. What we believe moral actions to be does not change what they actually are. In essence, that would be saying that people are always correct, and what we consider truth becomes truth. This, however, is not the case. It was once a widely held belief that the world is flat. Many people considered this true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But, as we know, this was never actually true."I did not or do not ever intend to say humans are always right. The issue with this example is that it was a belief that was dependant on action such as murder or rape. You are saying that because someone sees murder as right, it would be right. I am not saying that either. My point is that if enough people see murder as right, that is all a person in that society would know, completely shifting their definition of what morality is. There would be no objective morality because objective morality in that case is directly relative to the persons knowledge.I purpose that morality is completely dependant on culture, race, species, points in time, and experiences. That what we percieve as objective morality is limited to what that persons knowledge, what they have been taught, and how they are living. Mixed in with a the previous factors I mentioned i do not see how their can be a moral compass, or that there is a universal sense of right and wrong
Objective Morality

Let me begin by thanking Mikal for proposing this debate. It's an interesting topic, and one that I have put much thought into recently. As I am Pro, and making the initial arguments, I will use my last round strictly for rebuttal and conclusions. That said, I firmly believe that morality is objective. While the way we integrate it into our society and general lives is subjective, any action has an innate value of either moral or immoral. Definitions (As agreed on by Con and myself) Morality (Noun): 1.Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior 2.Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles Principle (noun): 1.A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning 2.A rule or belief governing one's personal behavior Fundamental (Adjective): Forming a necessary base or core; of central importance (Noun): A central or primary rule or principle on which something is based Opening Argument: In regards to the core of what morality is, I see it as a very simply concept. It can be generally summed up by a common phrase that the majority of us have probably heard at some point: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, to relate that specifically to what is and isn't a moral action: An immoral action is any action that is hurtful to any person, if that person has not consented to that action. A moral action would then be any action that is not immoral. By this rule, it would not be difficult to judge the morality of any action. However, as I said earlier, there is still subjectivity in how we integrate morality into our society. When considering two separate immoral actions, subjectivity lies in which is the greater moral offense. But regardless of that decision, both actions are still immoral. I will leave it at that for now, and pass the reins over to Con, as I am looking forward to seeing what arguments he puts forth.
let it be resolved that capitalism is superior to communism

Well...I've been waiting patiently, hoping to hear word from my opponent about their forfeit (to put it in perspective, it's a standard 3 days per argument setup, and I've waited until there is just an hour left for me to post), as they seemed initially very excited to debate this topic. But I've received no such contact...and they have not been online for 6 days now. I do hope they return soon, as the debate is still possible. Plenty of rounds left. I hope, wherever they are, they are fairing well.In any case, extend my arguments.
Dogs Are Better Than Cats

I accept, Case- Point 1- Hospitality- Invited guests are usually knocked over or slobbered over by a dog, the dog is essentially saying "pay attention to me!" Cats are not as demanding, they keep their distance and make sure the guest is friendly and would like to be with the cat. Point 2- The Smell- "Honey, it smells like wet dog in here!" Theres nothing like the stench of a dog, the sheer smell has it's own name, we know it as the "dog smell". This smell can turn a sweet smelling room into a choking hazard. Many times dogs are not allowed indoors because of this! Cats however do not smell, in fact, they are hygienic! Cats self-groom themselves by licking making them pleasant to be around. Point 3- Cats are far quieter than dogs- Fido just won't be quite sometimes, sometimes he just has to shout rambunctiously, whereas a cat does not, cats are actually quite quiet. Point 4- Walking- Cats do not require walking, in fact they walk themselves, nor do they require a leash. Cats are not nearly as hefty of a burden as dogs. Point 5-Cats take much better care of their equipment- A doggies chew toy can last a week, a cat's chew toy can last years. Why, because cats are not as aggressive as dogs, they treat their toys as they were meant to be treated. Cats keep their toys and treasure them, which makes the owner feel good as well (added bonus!) So no more having to go to a pet store and waste money! Point 6- Cats use a litter box. You don't have to get up at 6am to walk them in all types of weather. They also do not take much training in using a litter box as kittens. You just sit them in the litter box and they know what to do. Point 7-Cats are independent. You can leave a cat alone for a few days and they will not be traumatized. They can still be pet, and treated like mans best friend, but when your tired and don't feel like playing, your cat knows and will give you your space. http://animal.discovery.com...
Dogs Are Better Than Cats

This ought to be fun... Rules: first round is case, second round rebuttal, third round defense and conclusion (no new rebuttals) ............................................................................................................................ Point one: Dogs are capable of compassion, along with other traits It is a well known fact that dogs love people. Cats, on the other hand are selfish (and haters), and couldn't care less about you, provided they get their cat food; which is arguably the only reason cats don't ditch you. Dogs, however, will not intentionally leave you. Dogs are faithful,compassionate and better than cats. Why do you think the dogs chase the cats? Point two: Cats are heartless and hold grudges for the first part(cats are heartless) my proof is with science. Since dogs are loving, compassionate, and benevolent, and cats are the opposite of dogs, cats are hateful, selfish, and malevolent. And since dogs have hearts, cats don't, for they are the opposite of dogs. for the second part, I speak from personal experience. If you ever happen to step on a cat's tail, or forget to feed it, it will hate you and not trust you for the rest of its life. that is why dogs are better than cats http://www.animals-zone.com...
Dogs Are Better Than Cats

Lets once again look at the pro case, P1- "Dogs are better than cats because they are mans best friend" in her point 1 she concedes cats can be "mans best friend" on top of that, her only argument for dogs getting lost is cats do too, but once again nothing backs up this claim. Cats don't chase porcupines i believe, correct me if i'm wrong, and dogs do not have independence detectors (My Point 1- Hospitality proves this) P2-She concedes this entire point to me, and then brings up the same argument that cats hate you forever, but wheres the source? My Case- P1- Extend, Cats don't need training for SIMPLE hospitality, thus hospitality favors cats (extend) P2- Check? Check what? Wheres the source? My source defines all 7 of my points, in tab form. Yours doesn't prove dogs DON'T smell bad, (Wet dog) mine does. Thus you Negate (extend) P3- quote "It's the degree of training that varies" but she conceded cats don't need to be trained in her refutation of my point 1, and then she brings compassion into the debate, but the compassion she talks of in her refutation of my P3 is from a human to an animal. Why can't we show compassion to cats? Extend please, pro never disproves cats are quieter. (Extend) P4-Beneficial to the owner? I'm pretty sure a human being can walk by itself, and interaction with an animal, ANY domestic animal, will strengthen it's relationship with you, so that argument is invalid. (extend) P5-According to my opponent- the cost is slightly more for dog toys (No source) and I don't prove cats are superior. However, Pro concedes three points from this 1) Cats cost less than dogs 2) Cats equipment lasts far longer and 3) Cats are superior, in both maintenance and cost. (Extend) P6-Extend my last argument against her refutation of the litter box. LITTER is the word. P7-Cat's lack of reaction? I don't understand how a cat knowing when or when not to show compassion is lacking reaction.
Dogs Are Better Than Cats

Defending my case P1: I would start off by saying i need a better cat. all joking aside, dogs are better than cats because they ARE mans best friend (not just doing what mans best friend does) and they too have "independence detectors". Even if they didn't, dogs are not as infuriating as cats are, so it could slide. As to my hater saying, that was a joke to help show my stance on the matter. Also, if you've ever seen/heard the term "a stray cat" you can know that cats do indeed run away. I said dogs don't intentionally run away, they just get caught up in the moment of chasing the bird, or porcupine, etc. P2: I do admit, the heartless remark may have been uncalled for, but cats DO hold grudges. If you step on a cat's tail once, it hates you for days. dogs are mad for a few moments, then forgive and forget Defending my refutes P1: I didn't say anything about the training of cats because i didn't know it was possible. As said in my evidence of first round,"have you ever seen a cat sit on command? roll over? play dead? neither have I. As for cats being smart? I couldn't agree. P2:I said in my round "if they don't get soaking wet, they don't smell like 'wet dog' check if you don't believe me P3:All dogs can be trained, it's to the degree of training that varies, and that varies depending on how loving you are to your dog. P4: I'm saying a dog's need to be walked is beneficial to the owner, because they get exercise, while also strengthening your relationship with your dog P5:The cost is slightly more for dog toys, but a dog chewing up toys doesn't prove cats are superior by any means P6:Is something you consider a joy dropping cat feces into a trashcan? of course not. P7:This helps to prove my first point. a cats lack of reaction shows it doesn't love you as much as a dog does. Ps, sorry if my results got a little catty, i get serious over debate. sorry.
Dogs Are Better Than Cats

Alright lets begin! I will be attacking my opponents case then refuting arguments against my case Pro Case- Point 1- Cats clearly do show compassion, as I've stated in my 7th point, a cat gives what every "mans best friend" does, but also has an "independence detector" one that knows when to leave you alone. My opponent basically says cats are quote "haters"? Where is the source for this? Where does it say anywhere cats are not faithful and are "haters"? Where do cats "ditch you"? A dog has a far higher chance of "ditching you" by running away. You never hear of cats running away, only dogs, and that is why dogs require a leash. Point 2- Do i even need to disprove this? Judges you can clearly see how biased this argument is. (no source) My Case now Point1- Dogs can be trained, but cats don't need to and he quotes "cats don't greet people because they are antisocial" of course they aren't, they are smart, sociable creatures! Point2-They don't smell like wet dog if they get soaked in water, hm lets think then. Let's look at this ironically and say, clearly they do, then look at it logically and still you say yes they do. It's a very unique smell. Point3-Problem- Not all dogs can be trained and how long will it take to train them? (Cats don't need to be trained, Pro concedes this point) Extend the first 3 points please, especially point 3, cats are clearly quieter than dogs Point4-How does this apply to cats? If pro is trying to get at something by saying they need exercise, it hasn't been shown. This argument is misunderstood, please extend it. Pro clearly just conceded cats don't need to be walked and it is more convenient. Point5- 9 months, Look at the first speech for Con,Cats toys last years? That rope in 9 months will be string, if that's what you call rope. Extend my cost argument on point 5 as well Point6- Menial house task to dump an odorless litterbox? litter neutralizes odor Point7- Extend this, Pro just doesn't refute and tries to work around it Thank you