BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
marijuana should not be legalized

I haven't done a debate in ages. I guess it's time to see if I still have what it takes. 1. Legalizing marijuana will cause drug abuse and addiction, and will increase crime. a. This is a slippery slope fallacy. There's no logical link between legalization and an increase in abuse and addiction rates. b. Marijuana isn't an addictive drug. [http://www.drugpolicy.org...] c. If anything increases "abuse" of marijuana, it would be the ban placed upon it. Think back to the prohibition era. A blanket ban on alcohol resulted in underground speakeasies, organized crime (which didn't exist in that form prior to the ban), and more reckless consumption. The same effect is seen today, where younger kids (from whom alcohol is banned) engage in binge drinking and irresponsible partying; whereas, in many European countries, children are introduced to alcohol at far earlier ages, and are able to learn moderation. Allowing for the legalization of marijuana will do the same thing for moderation as the 21st Amendment did in the case of alcohol. [http://www.cato.org...] 2. Marijuana causes bad effects. a. The government doesn't own the bodies of individuals. The concept of self-ownership shows us that no man, group of men, or well-dressed officials has a higher claim to one's body than oneself; ergo, it's an individual's decision as to whether he or she smokes marijuana. b. Being angry also causes impaired judgment, heart problems, and increased risks of irrational behavior. c. If a person commits a crime while under the influence of marijuana, punish him for committing the crime - not for the substance he consumed prior to committing that crime. d. All drugs have risks; even those that are prescribed by doctors [http://articles.latimes.com...]. -BOTTOM LINE- Pro's only justification for a ban on marijuana is unjustified horror stories about increases in crime and drug abuse. He says that marijuana possesses many harmful side effects, despite the fact that both prescription drugs and other hazardous substances (alcohol and tobacco) have the same issues. Pro's case is the same regurgitated sort of paternalism we've heard since the legalization debate first began. Let's be realistic, here. Despite the harmful possibilities, despite the exaggerations, and despite the stigma of being a "pothead", I say we stick to reason, and let individuals assess the risk for themselves.
marijuana should not be legalized

Marijuana is an addictive drug that people know very little about. Many people try to legalize marijuana. However, legalizing marijuana is an absorb idea. This will cause Drug abuse and addiction; there are other drugs that help patient. Legalizing marijuana may increase problems and crimes. 1. drug abuse and an addiction are very dangerous. A lot of people use marijuana legally because they think that's cool. Marijuana can't be legalized because it turns good people to bad people. Marijuana may impaired perception, dimished short –term memory, and lost of concentration and coordination, impaired judgment, increase risk accidents, loss of motivation, dimished inhibitions, increased heart rate, anxiety panic attacks, and paranoia hallucinations, damage to the respiratory, reproductive, and immune system, increased risk of cancer, psychological dependency will happen to human body. This has to be illegal because students who are doing this may decrease learning capabilities. They may hard time limiting their use, they may need more of the drugs to get the same effect. The drug can become the most important aspect of their lives.
Video Games Are Bad For Children

I personally believe that video games are a good source of fun for kids. Kids learn a lot of lifelong skill from video games such as teamwork, logic, problem solving, and sometimes the video games might call for kids to get up and move. Such as Arms (2017) or Just Dance (2014), "And protect your brain from different conditions, like depression, Alzheimer's disease or dementia." -Wendy Suzuki (a Neuroscientist and author to see her full Ted talk visit https://www.ted.com...) Even if kids don't move video games still have benefits as I previously mentioned. Players also must have patience and focus and with time those skills increase, in some cases video games have been reported to increase attention spans. In recent studies, it has been found that gamers adopt a high concentration attitude, and don't realize they are learning. If the same attitude could be adopted at school education could have great benefits, many students "learn by doing" when playing video games and fostering creative thinking.
what the absolute minimum needed to believe tobe saved is not clear, or clearly taught

what the absolute minimum needed to believe is not clear. i am not saying this in terms of seeking to do or believe the minimum such as to "do as little as i have to to get saved". i am saying for theoretical purposes, what a christian must believe as a minimum to be saved (assuming they don't know or won't know everything possible to believe from the bible) is not clear, or clearly taught. i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer. it could be generally whatever savior means to you. but what if someone believes he's god etc, a new convert? that wouldn't cut it. basically everyone is at different stages. it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk. some people say you can't violate a tenant of the bible beliefs of Jesus... but oesnt i know many who say they don't believe he's god or aren't sure despite the bible. does that mean they're not saved? i know some who say it don't matter if they believe these things... they must believe in atonement. if that's the case though, then atonement is a necessary thing. i could point out many christian who don't know what that is... beyond the mere lack of knoing the definition etc. so could it be it's not what you believe but rather what you don't? that doesn't help cause the list problem is just starting in the negative direction. it seems the right answer is it depends on where you are and your heart relationship with God in terms of your believe in jesus. how many christians would say that when you ask them what you must believe? i know of none. so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.
what the absolute minimum needed to believe tobe saved is not clear, or clearly taught

his teachings can be unclear... if htey werne't you wouldn't have practically every pastor debating this issue. i agree that his treachings are probably clear, but that pastors have made it not clear.... that's all i'm debating. and, it could plausibly be argued as not clear, given what i said in my first post. for you to say savior is all that matters, is just you. that doesn't prove clarity. also, i'd bet if i asked, the response would be split amongst pastors... "what if htey believe savior in the sense of a good message but no in the sense of atonement?" and half would say saved and half would say not saved. in my hypo i'm assuming they're not deliberatlely refusing to believe in atonement but they don't know any better. so are you saying savior in any sense that they believe? does your definition include necessarily atonement undertones? i'm only asking as per those who are new to the faith and don't know any better. (plus if i were to argue about atonement... the orthodox believe something different than the catholic church and protestant and mainline US chrisitanity on his issue... and they argue what they've believe has always been true)
what the absolute minimum needed to believe tobe saved is not clear, or clearly taught

My understanding of what you must do to be saved is this: You only have to do one thing. Accept jesus as your saviour, that includes all of his teachings. You have not accepted Jesus if you are willing to debate some of his teachings are wrong or flawed. You must except him and his teachings completely. That does not mean that if you commit a sin that you are going to hell. Jesus says you must repent for your sins, that is part of his teachings. so if you do something that is a sin and try to convince your self that it's not that bad, you are not accepting Jesus and his teachings. Jesus died on the cross for your sins, that is why you don't automatically go to hell. I would contend that is why people who don't believe in god have a problem with god. Jesus' teachings interferes with their personal behavior and they don't think it's that bad, thereby not accepting Jesus as their savior.
Scientific theories are facts

Just to clarify for my opponent. Yes, the debate is whether or not scientific theories are facts. Please feel free to use any examples you deem necessary to expound. Now back to the debate and my opening argument. A scientific theory can be described as "an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. "(1) As such a scientific theory is something that has been tested multiple times as has been shown to be accurate and can be considered a fact. A very well known example of a scientific theory is Newton's theory of Universal Gravitation. (2) Expounding on Newton's theory, I think it is a rational position to state that no one doubts the validity of these equations/theory. For this reason we can state that this scientific theory is a fact. In a similar way we can show that all scientific theories are facts. If we do not consider them facts then the question arises what are facts? Or to carry the argument further are there any facts? This is a problem, as if we turn back to the Theory of Gravity we are faced with the reality that if this is not a fact then we would not be "sticking" to the Earth but flying off it at random times as Gravity would not be this constant universal force. I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) . http://www.livescience.com...(2) . http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Scientific theories are facts

I would like to extend this debate challenge to my opponent if he would accept.My position is that scientific theories are facts. As such the theory of evolution is a fact.This challenge comes from a recent debate by my opponent on a similar topic.The debate can be seen here.http://www.debate.org...I hope my opponent will take this challenge, and I hope we can have a fun debate.xxxxxxPlease realize to anyone reading this challenge before acceptance. The reason I created a debate is because I have no other method to contact Blaze8.
Scientific theories are facts

Thanks to my opponent for his speedy response, I am sorry I could not be as fast.I agree with my opponent that the bigger question is what is fact. That is why I say, scientific theories are fact otherwise there are no facts.This brings me to the major disagreement with my opponent. I disagree with my opponent that scientific facts can get divided into laws and theories. As every scientific law is a theory and can be disproved, this is essentially the heart of my argument. Even laws can be disproved, yet we accept them as fact otherwise no facts exist. However, the link my opponent provided on the "so-called" difference between laws and theories does require analysis and I wish to respond to my opponent on his analysis. Maybe I should also add at this point that the author of the link provided by my opponent does not make a classification between laws and theories as he states "Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting."(1)In essence my opponent tries to define between laws and theories as follows (I hope at this point I am not misinterpreting my opponent). Laws are observable facts that do not make predictions "The importance here lies not in what is stated, but in the predictability of the Law, something which Theory lacks." While Theories are based on observable facts and make predictions. Herein my opponent has a problem, the laws can be used to make predictions so as such they can all be classified as theories. Interestingly, even my opponent pointed out that Newton's Second Law can be used to make predictions. So let me wrap this up by asking, if laws are theories and laws are accepted as fact then why are we not accepting theories as fact? Regarding the definitions provided by my opponent, I think it would be appropriate to instead adopt the National Academy of Sciences definition of a Scientific Theory which states "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."(2) From this definition we can see that even laws can be disproved and so either scientific theories are facts, or no facts exist. In closing, the link provided by my opponent as well as the National Academy Of Sciences say that laws are incorporated in scientific theory. As such my opponents assertion that scientific facts can be divided into laws and theories is incorrect.I hand the debate back to my opponent.(1) http://science.kennesaw.edu...(2) http://www.nap.edu...
Gaming is underrated.

Now for my final input in this debate. My opponent in her 3rd round of debate addresses what she thinks is a failure to understand her definition of underrated. This is incorrect. I actually provide arguments that games are not underrated in both hers and my definitions of underrated. I show how the media gives them plenty of attention (my definition) and how it gives it the due negative attention (her definition) because video games actually have earned the negative media coverage that they receive. I argue this on both ends so as to give the voters peace of mind that there is no doubt that games aren't overrated in any way, shape, or form. I do not agree that my opponent's first argument is a stroke of common sense. This is negligible any way, since my opponent has not provided any evidence that she is qualified in any way as to how video games help you. She has no PHD in medicine, she has no PHD in psychology, she has no PHD in sociology, or pharmaceuticals, or health & fitness. I on the other hand do not use my own experience as hard fact and proof but instead use that of perfectly qualified and accredited university research facilities (which my opponent still claims are false but with no proof thereof). My opponent makes the statement, "My opponent fails to provide any evidence for any of this, so I find it to be false. Therefore, I cannot debate it." When my opponent claims that she has no proof to these statistics that they must be false. But by saying this my opponent refuses to must therefore believe that the US government, or Duke University, or the World Health Organization does not exist and this is of course fool hardy to think. When she demands proof in order to prove proof a vicious cycle begins and we continue to ask this question of the proof until both of us run out of proof and that will not benefit this debate. Instead my opponent would be better off providing proof that what I said is not true as I did with her case, but because she didn't then voters surely would agree that I am the better debater in this round. As a note to my opponent. Just because you don't fell obligated to provide argument against my counter argument does not mean that you are excused from doing so to win this debate. It is because of this refusal to actually provide evidence and argument against more than half of my round two argument due to her thinking that it is "stupid" that I must therefore win this debate. Thank you for debating with me and may no animosity come between us because of this debate. Good luck on your debating career. ()__() (='.'=) (")_(")
Gaming is underrated.

-. Because of this correct label games, at least in this instance are correctly labeled. Therefore they aren't underrated" Maybe you should look at my definition of "underrated" again, you are bringing my first contention totally out of distortion. When I say underrated I mean " not brought enough attention to ". Therefore making everything you said about the labeling untrue, I do not support your case. Simply, because correct "labeling" has to do with the parent, guardian, or who every fault. Fault for buying that game. What you were referring to was simply an introduction. Not something that was meant to be twisted into some weird dilemma, where you overrule me in the debate and make it look like I agree with you. "-1. All of his/her evidence is purely opinion (and his/hers at that) with no professional backing of any sort. " Now I am pretty sure what you read in my first argument was common sense, don't you agree? Now if I knew you were that type of debater I would of pulled you out on evidence for you being a "pro gamer" My opponent states, "Being a professional gamer myself I believe that I am quite qualified to provide this information. " I honestly don't believe you to be qualified, because I don't have proof. "-2. A study by The World Health Organization shows two things. First, all people who regularly engage in video gaming are shown to have both reduced brain activity and capability. Second, 93% of all morbidly obese people had an addiction to video games prior to their diagnoses. 3. A study done by the US Department of Education shows that while gaming does slightly improve one's hand eye coordination, any and all sports do so on a much greater level without the above mentioned downsides. " My opponent fails to provide any evidence for any of this, so I find it to be false. Therefore, I cannot debate it. "-My opponent gives these instances of negative media attention as an example but doesn't provide any argument that they are incorrect. This inadvertently stands as proof that my viewpoint is the appropriate one. " I give these "instances" because you were proving to me that games aren't underrated, because news stations such as CNN and ESPN have brought positive attention to video games by broadcasting them. Well I honestly don't feel obligated to provide an argument on examples, that are there merely for you and the judges'. I am not going to make irrelevant arguments on why an example is incorrect, that is just stupid. "- So I must ask that my opponent cease contradicting facts because it is an ineffective form of debate and is getting us nowhere. " Since my opponent fails to provide me with any arguments, he basically leaves me to tell you all, that every allegation he has made toward me is not true. And they aren't. Sorry this debate hasn't gone how I planned, I thought I would actually get somewhere. Thanks for trying though.
Gaming is underrated.

I will address each of my opponent's arguments in succession. First my opponent said that by agreeing with his/her original statement, "There's no difference between the M rated and the R rated or AO and NC-17. They are both rated for a good reason, so you don't buy them for your kid." that I must therefore agree with his/her whole case. This isn't true. I actually proves that her case supports mine. It does so in this way: When a video game is labeled as M or AO (my opponent says this is correct) it is therefore labeled appropriately. Because of this correct label games, at least in this instance are correctly labeled. Therefore they aren't underrated and my opponent's statement refutes his/her own case. Next my opponent brought up the fact that I didn't refute her evidence that video games are good for a child. To put his/her mind at ease I shall do so now. 1. All of his/her evidence is purely opinion (and his/hers at that) with no professional backing of any sort. 2. A study by The World Health Organization shows two things. First, all people who regularly engage in video gaming are shown to have both reduced brain activity and capability. Second, 93% of all morbidly obese people had an addiction to video games prior to their diagnoses. 3. A study done by the US Department of Education shows that while gaming does slightly improve one's hand eye coordination, any and all sports do so on a much greater level without the above mentioned downsides. 4. My opponent states, "Now I could list tons of instances where video games have had negative attention, but I seriously doubt you want to hear all that." My opponent gives these instances of negative media attention as an example but doesn't provide any argument that they are incorrect. This inadvertently stands as proof that my viewpoint is the appropriate one. Next I would like to point out that my opponent claims that my own personal experience was in fact an example of video games being shown in a negative light. I would like to say that I personally watched each and every telecast that had any thing to do with the convention in which I participated and I know that they have never reported them as negative but as interesting community events to be highlighted on the ten'o'clock news. So I must ask that my opponent cease contradicting facts because it is an ineffective form of debate and is getting us nowhere. This concludes my input for this round. ()__() (='.'=) (")_(")
Gaming is underrated.

Thank you for agreeing with the statement that games are rated for a reason and that they need be regulated in the same way as age limits on movies. Since this was not refuted I believe I should win this debate, also. Furthermore, something that was not refuted was, the reason that video games does add alot of good things for your child. With respect to the traditional rules of debate, these can not be brought up again. Now to refute that was brought onto my mass media argument. "Being a professional gamer myself I believe that I am quite qualified to provide this information. When I attend gaming conventions in cities all over the nation form NYC to OKC, from Dallas to Seattle, from Jacksonville to Helena I always notice that not just the local news stations are there to report it, but also national news networks such as ESPN to NBC to CNN and many more so obviously the media doesn't underrate the gaming world but instead gives it quite a bit of attention. " Now I understand that you believe with cameras, and new stations reporting your gaming you feel as if the gaming world isn't underrated. But bringing attention to local events isn't what I mean by "underrated", the negative advertising of gaming in the media world, heavily outweighs those of the positive. Now you mentioned that national news stations bring attention to the gaming world, but is this nessicarily positive? One you mentioned was CNN, for example, they have reported that " Video games 'sparked hammer murder'. " (. http://www.cnn.com...) CNN has also reported, "Violent video games linked to child aggression. " (. http://www.cnn.com...) Which has to do with my first argument that all it takes is good parenting and your child will be able to separate video games, from reality. Now I would like to define mass media as : collectively, the communications media, especially television, radio, and newspapers, that reach the mass of the people (en. wiktionary. org/wiki/mass_media) With that said other sites such as gamepolitcs. com has reported how video games are bad, (. http://www.gamepolitics.com...) Now I could list tons of instances where video games have had negative attention, but I seriously doubt you want to hear all that. I believe that everything I have said has great value and that you should vote in affirmation to the resolution. Thanks (: