BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should marijuana be legalized for recreational use

Yes, you are correct but WRONG prohibition of alcohol did not work but that was a legal substance that was made illegal and alcohol was socially accepted before the prohibition but marijuana was always illegal an not socially accepted in many parts of the world . So you cannot compare the two prohibitions because you will have different outcomes your, bases is flawed. your argument is wrong. YES your right but WRONG because alcohol is regulated. Therefore drug dealers cannot make illegal underground profits. So they make more money selling marijuana and not giving any money to the government. More money then selling to underage kids a product that their older siblings can get without extra cost. It is not that marijuana is easy to get but it just that you can get more money selling marijuana then alcohol. However criminals like drug dealers sell underage girls (human trafficking) does this mean you are advocating the legalization of selling girls or heroin? Also just because something cannot be eliminated for example people committing crimes it does not mean we should not continue to keep this harmful product from being easily obtainable for the greater good of society.
should marijuana be legalized for recreational use

The third major reason that marijuana should be legal is because prohibition does not help the country in any way, and causes a lot of problems. There is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use, and there are several theories that suggest prohibition might actually increase drug use. One unintended effect of marijuana prohibition is that marijuana is very popular in American high schools, because it is available. You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana, marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids. The government has tried to use criminal penalties to prevent marijuana use for over 75 years and yet: marijuana is now used by over 25 million people and marijuana is grown all over the planet. Idea that marijuana will soon be eliminated from America and the rest of the world is a ridiculous fantasy and this sounds stupid.
should marijuana be legalized for recreational use

The war on drugs is a big failure. Marijuana has been in use for hundreds of years and has not been contributed to a single death. Marijuana is not a gateway drug, it's not physically addicting, it doesn't kill brain cells... The propaganda surrounding marijuana is deceitful and just plain stupid. This plant will only benefit us instead of being detrimental as many may think. Stereotypes placed on marijuana ussers are stupid and lame. Almost every celebrity smokes weed or hides joints in their coats and they've all become millionaires.Another reason marijuana should be legal is for hemp. Hemp is marijuana not used for smoking but to create products. It can make paper, clothing, fiberboard twice as strong as wood and much much more. It is illegal to grow because it is conjuncted in with marijuana.
should marijuana be legalized for recreational use

many believe that marijuana is an ok or great drug but marijuana has a dark side to tell that not all people know. The affects can be very damaging both physical and mental. some people also think that it is a natural and good solution compared to the drugs that the pharmaceutical companies make or hospitals or other forms of retailing medical drugs but that is not the truth base on current evidence, marijuana is an dangerous drug drug and that there are less dangerous medicines offering the same pain relief and other medical symptoms without the nasty side effects that occur when consuming marijuana. This depends on how much you consume but getting high tensed to last longer then being intoxicated and we as humans does not jest drink alcohol from fermented fruits other animals do it as well like monkeys, elephants purposely consume fermented fruits to get intoxicated so it is perfectly normal to consume alcohol unlike marijuana! According to scientific studies the active ingredient in cannabis is "THC" which remains in the body for weeks. This ingredient is also used in most rat poisons. The immediate effects of taking marijuana are rapid heartbeat, disorientation, possible violent vomiting, and lack of physical coordination. Afterwards other symptoms which follow are depression, sleepiness, and some users suffer from panic attacks and anxiety which can lead to bodily harm. These are some of the reasons why marijuana should not be legalized.
should marijuana be legalized for recreational use

I'm for marijuana to be legalized for recreational use, because marijuana can be as dangerous as "food" that we put into our body's. Most people are scared of marijuana and parents, grandparents and other adults tell us that marijuana can kill us. First if alcohol and cigarettes are legal then why marijuana can't be legal too. Alcohol affects on people are scary and unhealthy. People with alcohol addiction are unstoppable they can't control their actions and because of this many life's were lost even of innocent people. To ppurchase marijuana legally you need to visit places like Washington or Colorado to buy a joint, which is far safer then a bottle of vodka. I have seen the affect on people when they are drunk and when they are high, so I rather see high person walking on the street chasing birds, then shouting young man with a vodka or bear bottle in their hands.Second marijuana can be used in medical world, as it shows good potential. Once I had broken my chest and experience is not the best. Pain killers never helped, but as I know marijuana can be used to stop that pain for good. Marijuana can even help in other situations like: mitigates multiple sclerosis and Tourette Syndrome symptoms, and may reduce dystonia. So if marijuana is so bad and its a devils gift to world why some countries, states allow it, maybe its not that bad after and some people should stop worrying about marijuana and start looking how it could help us.
Resolved: The drugs mentioned herein should either become, or remain, legal.

[ DEBATE PARAMETERS ] For clarification, my opponent and I will be debating over the legal status of 3 drugs: 1. Marijuana 2. MDMA 3. Tobacco That said, I'd like to offer the argument that a CBA (cost benefit analysis) should NOT be the sole criteria for whether or not something should be legal. In that case, Con would be suggesting that any alternative with the better CBA should be legal regardless of the moral implications. That is simply not the way in which the United States government operates. We do not determine the legality of something based on how much money it contributes to the state. In order for this to be valid, Con would have to prove that money is more valuable to the nation than the well being or rights of it's people. Because it is very unlikely that Con will be able to establish this absurdity, I offer instead that a CBA can very well be taken into consideration for this debate, but should in no way be asserted as the SOLE criteria. I agree with the other standards put forth by my opponent; the winner of this debate will have proven that at least 2/3 of the drugs up for discussion should become or remain legal.
Resolved: The drugs mentioned herein should either become, or remain, legal.

Round 1 will be for opening statements only, unless Pro wishes to post her arguments at this time (as it would be a bit cleaner if I had a case to attack in Round 2). Now then, as I'm certain that my opponent is MORE than intelligent enough to understand the topic, definitions will not be necessary. -Debate Parameters- My opponent and I will be debating over the legal status of 3 different drugs: 1. Marijuana 2. Ecstasy 3. Tobacco My opponent and I will only be arguing over these three points, and any extra contentions brought up by either of us should be disregarded; this is to keep the debate centered solely on these drugs; any points about crack, heroine, alcohol, etc. are not permissible in the debate. The way that a winner will be determined is two-fold: To determine the legal status of a drug, we will use a cost-benefit analysis; the analysis will be decided on both quantity and quality of the pros and cons presented; because of this, it is up to the debaters to not only provide a number of different pros and cons, but to argue over the magnitude and impact of each; this does mean that, while I may bring up 3 different cons to legalizing marijuana, Lwerd could provide 1 pro, and still win the point, but only if she was able to explain why her single reason bears more weight than my 3 reasons combined; so, quantity matters, but quality does, also; so, I remind my opponent (and myself) that, to keep the debate interesting, we should try to provide a large quantity of quality arguments. :) Secondly, to win, I'd like to stress that a debater does NOT have to win the argument on ALL 3 drugs; to win the debate, a debater need only win the arguments over 2/3 of the drugs; for example, if I won the debate over Marijuana, but Lwerd won the debate over Ecstasy and Tobacco, she would win the debate (at least, she'd win the points for arguments); I don't want to impose the 'all or none' burden on either of us; I want this to be a genuine discussion, not a win based off of resolutional technicalities. I don't think there's really too much else to say on the framework; if you disagree with me on this, Lwerd, feel free to PM me or post in the comments section. But, assuming that you accept this debate, good luck. I'm excited. :)
Theories against the Resurrection of Jesus Christ are incorrect

Josephus No this works for both mentions of Yahshua, early Christian scholars scanned the works of Josephus many times, they tended to use his works for debates against pagans and would have loved a mention of Yahshua to use against the pagans, however vague. Tacitus Pro claims that Tacitus probably sourced his work from previous documents. Obviously this is possible but we still do not have the original documents, just because someone is held in high regard does not mean they do not have to cite sources. Also saying that Tacitus could have got his information from "hearsay or gossip" doesn't help you in any way, decades old gossip will have moved far from the truth (a bit like a game of telephone). Many "Messiah's" Many "Messiah's" existed now and then, many people come to Jerusalem to proclaim themselves the Messiah, this is called the Jerusalem syndrome [1]. Lack of Eyewitnesses It would also be reasonable to assume Tacitus had mint condition documents but still failed to mention them. Overall Arguments A person who never existed cannot be resurrected. The only evidence of the existence of Yahshua comes from (at least) second hand accounts that don't cite any source. This means we have no primary sources for the existence of Yahshua and conclude that evidence of his existence is lacking and therefore a negative is assumed. Furthermore there is absolutely no evidence for the resurrection of Yahshua and we can conclude it didn't happen. I urge you to vote Con. [1] http://www.psychiatriapolska.pl......
TBD: To Be decided by Con.

I affirm (Resolved): Cancer patients should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms. Definitions Cancer patients: someone undergoing cancer Smoke: to inhale and exhale smoke Marijuana: the most commonly available psychoactive drug originating from the cannabis plant. Relieve: provide physical relief Symptoms: observable or internal changes in the mental, emotional, and physical condition of a person Contentions: I. Cancer patients have the right to take marijuana in the form of a pill rather then the right to smoke. A) Effective - According to the Department of Health, marijuana in the form of a pill is more effective then in the form of smoke. Reason: The marijuana gets digested rather then put through the lungs and then into the blood stream. Therefore, more symptoms are relieved. B) No negative side effects - Smoking marijuana can actually cause more harm to the patient because all the negative side effects that come with it are there. E.g. A more intense physical high. Important note: The high is not what relieves the pain. In pill form, the negative side effects do not occur, because it is digested. In essence, its only duty is to relieve pain not cause a high. C) Crime Prevention - According to the FBI, making marijuana in the form of a smoke for cancer patients would increase the amount of illegal weed on the streets. Therefore, keeping the marijuana in the form of a pill would reduce the amount of illegal weed on the streets. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
TBD: To Be decided by Con.

Thank you, CiRro, for offering me this opportunity. I accept (obviously) your challenge. I also have had some difficulty thinking of debate topics recently. I am very much against yet another debate on atheism/Christianity; abortion, gay rights, and gun control, as these seem to be pretty much the only topics being discussed at the moment. This limits me I know so I will list a few topics as I can think of them, and see what we can come up with. I looked, and there are not any items that you and I disagree on that I feel strongly about, so I am mentioning some of those areas where we do disagree, as well as a couple of other issues that I just feel strongly about. 1.NCLB (No Child Left Behind) is beneficial to our schools and students 2.George W Bush, as President, usually acts in a moral manner 3.Cancer patience should not be allowed to smoke marijuana to relieve their symptoms 4. Politicians should be allowed to collect however much a donor wishes to contribute to their campaign fund. 5.Profiling by police does not constitute police enacted racism. All of these naturally have you in the PRO and me in the CON category. I know you said politics or philosophy, and most of these are politics, however there are two in there that I had planned on stating as a resolution in a first come debate at some point in the near future anyway. I look forward to debating you CiRro, as I am sure you are going to 1) show up to the debate (which will be a nice change of pace) and 2) make me work for every point. :D Good Luck.
TBD: To Be decided by Con.

Ok, since I can't think of a topic, and based on ideological lines, you, Xera are somewhat close to me, except on a few issues. Therefore, I will let you pick the topic. Plz let it center around politics, or philosophy. You seem like a very good debater, and I believe I've debated your daughter. So, ty, if you do indeed take my challenge. Good luck also. I look forward to an excellent debate. If needed, you can look on my issues part of my profile if u need to see my stances. *I purposely did 4 rounds so you can tell me what topic u want, then on the 2nd round we can state our arguments, and your 1st rebuttal. Thank you Xera
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

The Bugatti is a beautiful car, I agree with that. Just one problem. Your rich, you have 2 million dollars, you buy one. Hey friends I have a Bugatti Veyron! BOOM! Much swag. Friend: "OK drive it". You: 0_0. So unless your a zillionaire that can buy a private racetrack, that's gonna be hard to drive.
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

I will happily accept! I'll allow you to present your opening arguments, and I will present mine in the next round, as we have five rounds to talk about this.I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on "rich," please. By rich, I'm assuming enough money to spend $2million on a car and have enough left over to be way more than comfortable. Like tens of millions of dollars at the least.Thanks! Looking forward to a good debate. Now this looks pretty amazing.
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

Ok, nice and easy for the first one I create. Lets say you are rich. Would you by a Bugatti, or is it a waste? Con/Against if you think it is a waste Pro/For if you think it's worth it. Whoever has the most in each round wins. Whichever side gets the most rounds won wins! Then we know if its a waste or not!
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

My last argument was weak. No offence taken Mr. Man. Now I must say I'm doing these off the top of my head, no extensive research. So time to pull out my heavy weapon. MAD RESEARCHING SKILLZ!!!! I appreciate http://carbuying.jalopnik.com... for his help. Now why would this be a dumb idea? 1- You can't work on it yourself His/Her Words: Here's a 7-figure car that has 16 cylinders, 4 turbochargers, and more technological mumbo jumbo than the Super Human Samurai Cyber Squad put together, and the best that it can do to excite the car enthusiast is two matte grey metal tubes with some shiny 12-point bolts. There's a certain bond that the car enthusiast gets from popping the hood and interacting with the mechanical bits themselves, even if you're not necessarily turning a wrench. My Words: They are right. Wouldn't you love to pop open the hood of your car and do a little bit of handiwork, or at least look at it's beautiful engine. All this car's got are "shiny bolts" and "cylinders". 2- There's too many! I'm not even going to show the author's words. It is self explanatory. Bugatti mass produces them like Ford's early stages did! It's like if your a model car enthusiast. Do you pick the new shiny Bugatti model everyone is pushing over each other to get, or one of the 10 McLarens on the bottom shelf no one is even looking at! You want a rare one! 3- It's a horrible value! His Words: Let's put some numbers behind the rhetoric: A Bugatti Veyron 16.4, with all dealer fees included, will cost $2 million from your local mom-and-pop Bugatti dealer. A 6-year old Bugatti Veyron, with 2 miles on the odometer can be had for 1.39 million. That's only a $600,000 hit in depreciation for a car that hasn't been driven. In the used market, the numbers are even worse - $1.1 million for a car that's done 11k miles in 8 years. 4- The competition outdrives it any day Ok, it's obvious isn't it. Would you rather drive the Bugatti Or these beautiful rides: McLaren P1 Koeniggsegg One Koeniggsegg Agera R Ferrari California T Ferrari LeFerrari Pagani Huarya or the cheapest : Chevrolet Corvette Stingray Convertible MAD SKILLS!
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

I do have an answer for everything! How can't I ;) hahaHold on, your argument is "someone steals it, but the police find it for you with crumbs in it"? Of course the chance of someone stealing a car will be more if your car is worth millions more than any average car, but that's a "risk" you're taking when you buy the car. The chance of someone successfully stealing a Veyron without anyone noticing and without setting off any alarms is next to none."The vehicle is equipped with a means of anticipating and/or detecting unwanted vehicle intrusion. The vehicle is equipped with an ignition disable device that will prevent the engine from starting if the correct original manufacturer key is not used." - Taken from an authorized Bugatti retailer [1].And coming from a "reasonable" perspective, if I had the option to steal a Veyron, or say a BMW 328i, I'd go for the BMW. It'd be a matter of minutes before the police find out, and I'd stick out like a sore thumb.That's like saying don't buy anything more expensive than "average" because someone may steal it. That's unrealistic and not many people would be very happy if nobody had anything that was better than average.All your arguments are unlikely hypotheticals. I'm not trying to be rude at all, but "what if someone steals it," wouldn't be a reason for me to not get something.Alright give me all you've got in your final round![1] http://autos.aol.com...
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

Mister, you have an answer for everything, don't you? So lets say your not a guy with a mansion no more since you bough a Bugatti. That's not my argument by the way. You drive down the street, when everyone starts to stare. You park a Target and lock it up. You come back and its gone. You check every lot but your precious Veyron is gone. Should've taken the BMW,huh? So the police eventually find it, but there are crumbs and spilled soda all over it. THE THING IS A FRICKIN ROBBAH MAGNET.
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

Well first of all, if the accident isn't your fault, your insurance will cover it 100%, so you don't have to worry about the money, even though that isn't an issue to begin with.Secondly, you can find a place to repair a Bugatti [1].If you can afford to own a mansion, you will be able to afford to ship your Bugatti to get repaired, if insurance doesn't cover that. The measly thousands of dollars won't put much of a dent in your mortgage payments on your mansion.I see your point, but practically looking at it, money isn't an issue, and unless you total it and it's your fault, there really isn't any downside of owning a Veyron if you're rich. [1] http://www.autobugatti.com...
Is it a waste of money (presumably your rich) to get a Bugatti Veyron

First of all here is my clarification, and you are not being dumb you are just making sure to make a nice debate. So you got it, have enough money for wax, and to pay mortgage on your mansion, but that's about it, and some to get gas. Now I just remembered a video I saw with a Bugatti on the interstate, so my argument is weak. But, aha! I've got a little trick up my sleeve. Your on the interstate cruising, listening to your radio, being all la-te-da happy! then some student driver tail-ends you, it's fine until you can't find a car repair shop that will service a Veyron. You get evicted from your mansion paying to get your car miles away to a repair place. Your like, "OK, I still have a nice house, not a mansion but nice, now fix my car please!" "Umm, sir, that'll be $2,567." 0_0. You pay it. Not much money... Then your transmission is messed up. Oh snap... x_x