BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

I never said he was an abolitionist.... I said he viewed us all as equal. "Lincoln"s purpose for the Proclamation was not the immediate freedom of all slaves. Rather, he hoped the declaration would weaken the moral cause of the South, while strengthening the Union"s moral cause. He felt that with the Proclamation the Civil War now had a "higher purpose," which Lincoln sought to leverage for the Union." "Lincoln had the reputation of being an abolitionist but his political record indicated this was not completely Accurate" President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation Jan. 1863 this document was for the freedom of slaves though not all of them got freed the ones that were in the rebellious states where not freed. President Lincolns Main focus was on Slavery and preventing it from moving to other territories. he outlined terms of freedom for the slaves that were in the rebellious states. President Lincoln refrained from fully supporting Abolishment because he felt that the POLITICAL CLIMATE wouldn't be able to support it. So in all actuality he was An ABOLITOINIST but he didn't fully support because of his duties as president " It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control."(talking about the Emancipation Proclamation) As for Lincoln being racist like your source says........He did have many slaves and he had many children with the as well but he cared for them. He wanted The slaves to be free from the white man and join the Confederate army. "Slavery is founded on the selfishness of man's nature; opposition to it on his love of Justice." - Abraham Lincoln http://www.gilderlehrman.org... http://www.apstudynotes.org...
Is the legalization of weed beneficial to the population

I thank you very much for taking on this debate and hope for it to be an interesting one. I will start with my arguments that marijuana benefits the population financially, then move to it's laws that may be seen as drastic and finally it's health benefits. Marijuana is one of the most popular drugs in the United States. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, 41% or 102 million Americans used marijuana and 15 million use it regularly (1). According to CNBC, marijuana is a huge market that generates 40 billion dollars annually. If legalized, it could generate a 100 billion dollar business in the US (2). Imagine the potential for new businesses, jobs and tax revenue. According to Cato Institutes (a think tank) if legalized America would gain 8,7 billion dollars in taxes, not to mention the billions of dollars saved regulating Marijuana (2). This could help the economy and therefore potentially improve the lives of many citizens. Laws over marijuana can be drastic, compared to other countries. In Switzerland, you would get fined for the possession of cannabis. In Holland it's a part of their culture but In 36 states of the US, you can be jailed for a whole year with possession (4). For a drug that is less addictive than coffee, that is pretty harsh. Marijuana has been proven to have Health benefits (5). Marijuana treatment can heal patients Glaucoma, an ocular disorder left untreated can lead to blindness. This is the most well documented of all studies over health benefits with cannabis and there's been no study to disprove it. Marijuana stops the neurological effects and muscle spasm of Multiple Sclerosis, an otherwise deadly sickness. ADD and ADHD are better treated with marijuana, since the side effects of the otherwise used Ritalin are non-existent. Alzheimer's can be prevented through Marijuana, according to the Scripp's Institute, since the THC blocks the deposits in the brain that cause the disease. Cannabis can prevent cancer, reduce heart attacks by an amazing 66% and insulin dependent diabetics by a whopping 58% if consumed raw. For now I will leave the facts standing to speak for themselves. I'm keen of your counter arguments and hope to debate soon because school starts Monday. (1) Over 100 Million Americans Have Smoked Marijuana -- And It's Still Illegal? | Alternet (2) Marijuana Legalization Benefits Now Include Profit Potential For Wall Street Investors: Report (3) Legalizing Marijuana Would Generate Billions In Additional Tax Revenue Annually (4) FAQ Marijuana Cases 4.24.12.pdf (5) Still Believe Nature Got It Wrong? Top 10 Health Benefits of Marijuana | True Activist
Is the legalization of weed beneficial to the population

Legalization of weed is an ever growing topic in society, especially with younger people. I will debate why weed (specifically smoking marijuana) is more beneficial to the populace financially and improving the populations happiness, than keeping it illegal. My opponent will debate the opposite. The first round is for accepting the debate and establishing rules only. The second round and third round are to debate (slight pun). The fourth round is for a conclusion and optionally a feedback from my opponent. I would like to point out that this is my first debate and I am a teenager. So don't go too easy on me. I'm looking forward.
Is the legalization of weed beneficial to the population

But they CAN be compared when you use the economic argument! And I think I might have said before that I believe tobacco should be outlawed too, why shouldn't it? By 'smoking' I meant tobacco but the point was that if we were to legalise cannabis, I would be subjected to it when I'm in public. Being addicted to work, coffee or chocolate (as dark is healthy) aren't bad, marijuana is. I personally find 300million a shocking number of firearms and to legalise tobacco in the US would be a disaster. Yes, British humour (NOTICE THE SPELLING) is THE best humour one can find. This debate has been as challenging for me as you, no I cannot imagine someone on Debate.org being a pot head especially someone who is Swiss! Thank you, kindly, once more. :)
Is the legalization of weed beneficial to the population

Thank you for your responds. Nuclear weapons are not sold, even on the black market. Marijuana you can buy practically everywhere. That is why it cannot be compared. I hoped I had made that clear in the previous argument. You say that we cannot have parents bring up their children whilst high on weed. I assume you mean, that this is a reason to ban weed. I agree that it would be disgusting, that a child would be raised by constantly high parents but what about the children that are raised with parents drunk or smoking tobacco the whole time. We would have to ban bear or tobacco to prevent this happening, We have learned from the Prohibition in the US, that that is a terrible idea. I haven't found any study comparing marijuana and tobacco or marijuana effecting the brain stronger then tobacco. I would like to see that article. I'm assuming that with "smoking" you mean marijuana, then I'm surprised you see so many citizens smoking marijuana in public. If you mean "smoking" of tobacco then may I remind you this is a debate about Marijuana. I too quickly assumed that saying my argument is stupid, was an opinion rather then an argument. Now your real argument there was, that we shouldn't listen to other countries when it comes to laws and you use the example of homosexuals heads being cut off in Saudi Arabia. That is exactly why we should listen, since there are laws like that in Saudi Arabia from people who don't listen. I wanted to point about the 9% addiction, that it is safer to consume marijuana then alcohol since alcohol has a 15% addiction rate or tobacco with a 33% addiction rate. Despite this alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs unlike marijuana. I know this is not pretty one way or the other but there is no world with no addiction. You have to be a realist in this. You can become addicted to work, to coffee, to music even to chocolate. I'm sorry to mislead you with 7.3% of offenders commit a crime with a gun. This also accounts for offenders who at the time had a gun while caught with marijuana, not in the sense they shot at the police while high. In the US where there are 300 million firearms for 307 million citizens this is not surprising. I love how you offend me and America of being seriously confused and go on with a thank you kindly. I like your British humor. I'd like to say this was a challenging debate. I also hope you don't think of me as a pot head. Thank you very much Henry. By the way I'm Swiss.
Is the legalization of weed beneficial to the population

But the example of Nuclear weapons is in perfect proportion to cannabis. You cannot use the economical argument. We would make a lot of money from selling nuclear weapons, but it's bad so we don't do it. We would make a lot of money from selling cannabis, but it's bad so we don't do it. Just because numerous people take cannabis, it is not a justified act. And, yes, the Netherlands are poisoned. You cannot have mothers and fathers bringing up their children whilst high on weed. It's disgusting! The effects on the brain are more severe than tobacco/nicotine. Living in London, one is subjected to a spectrum of different people, the only people who smoke in public seem to be foreigners. Now, you say it's a choice to smoke, but is it much of a choice when you are walking through Green Park on a crisp Sunday morning only to be gassed by the Greek couple ahead of you? Or have to deal with Americans on the Tube who decided to get high before taking the Victoria line between Victoria and Green Park which is a bad idea in itself? It may be a choice to smoke it, but when your right to choice infringes on others' rights to life, to health and to not have to deal with idiots on public transport, then we have a problem. "You claim my argument over the harsh punishments of marijuana is stupid. I guess that's your opinion and you're entitled to an opinion." Yes, yes I do indeed. But it's your position to persuade me I'm wrong and you're right..otherwise this debate is just pointless. 9% of people developing an addiction is 9% too many. It's just another way for big companies to make money out of people. They'll probably add even more drugs to get even more people hooked on their nefariously concocted poison. "Only about 7.3% of offenders commit a crime with a gun" ONLY 7.3%...oh that's nothing! ARE YOU HAVING A BLOODY LAUGH?! 7% is a HUGE number of people. This is surely a point for me! Marijuana legalisation will never work in a country in which you are 'entitled' to own a gun AND smoke pot..why on earth do you Americans reckon this is 'beneficial to the population' as defined by the motion. You people are seriously confused if you believe in gun ownership and cannabis legalisation. Please. At least give it some thought, first. Thank you, kindly.
Is the legalization of weed beneficial to the population

Comparing a weapon that destroys whole cities, kills millions of people and poisons the environment, to a drug that makes you high is a bit too drastic. Large parts of the population already consume marijuana, unlike nuclear weapons. You can buy Marijuana anywhere in a city, nuclear weapons are behind vaults and well armed men. You also say we would be poisoning our population? Are you saying the population of Holland is poisoned? The population of California, Washington State or Colorado? One also has to remember smoking Marijuana is a choice, nothing forced on anybody. You claim my argument over the harsh punishments of marijuana is stupid. I guess that's your opinion and you're entitled to an opinion. You seem to agree more or less about using marijuana for health benefits. It is true that you would need to smoke excessively to have positive effects against cancer. That is why I noted in my previous argument that you would need to consume it raw. I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear enough. The claim that cannabis has a higher addiction, similar to tobacco, is simply wrong. Jann Gumbiner from Psychology Today explains that only 9% of marijuana consumers will develop an addiction. This is tiny compared to tobacco (32%) or even alcohol (15%) (1). Yes I didn't know this too but consuming weed is safer than alcohol. Jann Gumbiner also points out that most people just try marijuana out and it has very few withdrawal symptoms then compared to tobacco (1). Also note that between 1994 and 2007, there were 26 deaths due to marijuana in the US. For smoking tobacco it is 440'000 deaths per year. You seem to make the assumption that where there is a lot of crime it's due to marijuana. Crime related to marijuana isn't as sever as you may think. Only about 7.3% of offenders commit a crime with a gun, the lowest of any drug offenders and marijuana offenders are most likely to receive a reduced sentence due to their minimal role in a crime (2). I would suggest that these are "dangerous neighborhoods" were crime is generally. .. high. This is not necessarily because of Marijuana. I thank my opponent for his time. (1) . http://www.psychologytoday.com... (2) . http://www.famm.org...
Is the legalization of weed beneficial to the population

Firstly, even though cannabis may help economically, it doesn't mean we should legalise it. If we sold Nuclear Weapons to Cuba, North Korea and Iran we would make a lot of money, it doesn't mean we should do it. Making money out of poisoning others is sick, which is why I think we should ban tobacco as well as cannabis. Your argument over the harsh punishments of the UK and the US over cannabis possession is stupid. Homosexuality will get you beheaded in Saudi Arabia, we shouldn't listen to other countries when it comes to making laws. Your other points are about medicinal values of cannabis. In the case of Glaucoma, medicinal cannabis should be allowed in that case, as it does benefit society as a whole. But we need to be careful and regulate the market heavily. You say cannabis can reduce cancer. This isn't entirely true. Lung cancer it may well do if you smoke it EXCESSIVELY, but this will have other health hazards and it won't stop other types of cancer like skin cancer or ovarian cancer. Cannabis should not be legalised, it will increase poverty due to its high addiction, similar to tobacco. Does a child need a mother who is there for them or a mother who is constantly high on cannabis. Cannabis has more of an effect on the body that tobacco does, by this, I mean the feeling of 'being high'. While being high isn't a bad thing, judgement is affected, as well as reaction times and other important bodily instincts. In areas where crime related to cannabis is high, so is violent crime and shop lifting. It may not be as bad as heroin or cocaine, but cannabis is still not good.
THW: Pull the lever in the "trolley problem".

I will argue as indicated above that you should not pull the lever. The principle my opponent is supporting seems to be that it is better to kill one so five could live. Consider a simple modification to the trolley problem. This time you are standing on a bridge and instead of a lever there is a fat man next to you. For the sake of this case, let"s say you know that if you push the fat man over he will die but stop the train from hitting the five people on the track. Is this justifiable? It is essentially the same problem. Furthermore, consider this case. Imagine yourself a doctor who has five patients. Each needing a valuable organ transplant; a heart, a kidney" etc. each will die if there is not a donor soon. In the next room over you have a perfectly healthy 18 year old who happens to be the perfect donor for all five other patients. To apply the principle that it is better to kill one to save five would justify killing this 18 year old and harvest his organs for the five. Hopefully by this point it should be clear that the principle in question is immoral. This is because it is a violation of the harm principle. Essentially, the harm principle is summed up in this way; The right to swing your fist stops at the point in which it hits my nose. The point here is that we are free to take actions so long as they do not harm others. In the case of the trolley problem, you are free to do whatever you can to save those in harms way, but not at the expense of harming someone else. Who are we to decide that the one should die or that others should live?
THW: Pull the lever in the "trolley problem".

The problem is as follows: There are five people on a track, and they are about to be run over by a runaway trolley! However, you are next to a switch which, if you pull, will divert the trolley onto a different track, hitting the one person who is on that track, instead. We are assuming that the only way to save the five people is to pull the lever- you can't yell at them to move off the track, for instance. We're also assuming that the trolley is absolutely guaranteed to hit and kill whoever is in its path. As proposition, I will argue that yes, you should pull the lever, killing one person rather than five. My opponent, therefore, will have to argue that you should not pull the lever.
Islam is the only best religion ever existed on earth

You don't get it do you? You cannot prove Islam is the greatest, you cannot prove that using the Koran, you cannot prove that using x,y, or z. You cannot prove Christianity is the greatest, you cannot prove it using the Bible. Get it? Religion is deeply personal and if its the greatest and works for you! then fine! You are very dense and ignorant, saying that the followers of 4197 Religions need to be more educated because they're illogical. What kind of B.S is that? The only way a Religion can be proven greater than all others is if they kill or convert over 7 billion people and become the worlds ONLY religion. This shouldn't be about any other religion but Islam, but you decided to cut and paste some argument using the mine is better, because the other ones are stupid, and illogical. Then quote the Koran, the prove something that to anyone who isn't Muslim means literally nothing. I do not care what the Koran says. I never said Muslims kill people in the name of Religion, I said Muslim TERRORISTS kill people in the name of Islam. What shocked me was that you did not disavow TERRORISM, if people were taking my sacred religion and using the teachings of that religion to kill hundreds of thousands of people each year I would be distancing myself so far from them you would have no reason to think we followed the same religion, instead you said well, death happens anyways. Really? I have no issue with Islam, or any religion in general, if you leave me alone I leave you alone, you wondered why so many people hate Islam, its because of the same b.s in your last paragraph, y'all act as if terrorism is 100% okay. That needs to change before Muslims can consider Islam anywhere close to a great religion.
Islam is the only best religion ever existed on earth

I asked you if you could prove is Islam is the greatest religion on Earth with out citing the Koran or using personal stories. I said that because you cannot, instead you said there are many misconceptions of Islam while using misconceptions of Christianity with the Trinity, Hinduism with polytheism, and Judaism with the Torah. Not only did you simply try and promote Islam, you didn't prove anything to me. (Besides your ability to cut and paste). Then you bring up logic, logic when it comes to an ideology, is 100% subjective to ones own faith. Every Religion will say they are the most logical using the argument you used. You discount 4197 world religion and focus on 3, then bring up Judaism, so 4196 world religions. What if I am a follower of another world religion? You put down 3 Religions that I have nothing in common with and proved one thing: you have no argument. Proving you are the greatest does not involve showing why all the others suck, it is proving you are the best. How do you prove you are the best? Actions speak louder than words. You can proclaim the "glory of Islam" all you want. It means nothing to me, Quoting the Koran to prove Islam is the greatest religion on earth is like quoting the Lord of the Rings to prove its better than Game of Thrones and Harry Potter. You have to go out side of the Story and use what the followers of that religion have gone and done to help the world. Helping the poor, helping the sick, helping those in need,promoting education and equal rights for women and denouncing the radical extremists in their religion. Actions speak louder than words, I can write down all this great stuff I should do, then quote my lifestyle and say, "hey in my (insert religion here) it says you cant do (what ever the rest of the world sees wrong)" then go ahead and do those things anyway. Its hypocritical, it is do as I say not as I do. It doesn't matter what the Koran says when sadly, the most noticeable part of Islam is its link to terrorism, is doing the complete opposite of what you are saying. You also do a good job at selectively quoting the Koran, because every Sharia country uses the Koran to justify its awful treatment of women. 4 men to justify a rape, Really? Muhammad marrying a 6 year old, that makes Islam the greatest religion on earth?
Islam is the only best religion ever existed on earth

First in foremost what is your argument? Your point is that Islam is the greatest religion on earth, but why? Proving Islam is "The only best religion ever existed on earth" [sic] (from the title of the argument) is hard because what is the greatest on earth is 100% subjective to the individual or the group in question, in the realm of ideologies like religion for example when you break it down to its core; religion is an ideology. With out quoting the Koran or using personal stories, can you prove Islam is "the only best religion ever existed on earth"?
Vegetarinism

You gave me some counter argument's about soy. Yes, there are different reason's that soy is bad for you in the long run, and also can be in the short term, slightly beneficial. You failed, Smarticles, to say anything about animals dying while crops were harvested. Or, my stating animals can be treated with care and respect intended to be eaten. So you actually didn't say ANYTHING else except for quotes from a website not based on research, but biased because they are SELLING accessories for cooking with soy! Also, like I previously stated (that you said nothing about whatsoever) was eating food available to you is better than to die of starvation. Would you like to have the native African tribes stop eating meat they have been eating since they're people began? You also said nothing about pesticides. Or anything about ANY arguments I made. If everyone will notice, I stated that most vegetarians are basing they're biased against eating animal's because of random horror video's they've seen. Exibit A, at the end of Smarticles retort to me. Yes, sometimes animal's get abused. Sometimes, people get abused. This does not mean either one of these are condoned, or endorsed. If your so worried about not eating meat because of this reason, why not fight for the good treatment of animals? If there are obviously companies you feel are not treating they're animals correctly, why not do something about THAT, instead of asking me to stop eating meat. While your at the outback, looking down on me eating my steak, your doing nothing about what your upset about. So, as I said previously human being's are NOT naturally designed to not eat meat. You, feel bad about the fact that these creature's lives are being taken for nourishment. Is there some kind of preconceived, and false notion you have about the natural life of animals? Perhaps you see a cow, dying peacefully by the fire in a big front room somewhere in the back of your brain? What about those animals which are predators that will otherwise kill, and devour the cow otherwise? Should we go ahead and after ALL humans stop eating meat, make lions vegetarians to? No, you say? Is this perhaps because it is NATURE? Haven't HUMANS eaten meat since we have found the very first traces of our ancestors? So it is NATURAL for us to eat meat? Every living thing on this earth, will eventually die. Why not use these animal's and prolong they're use in a positive way?