BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana should be legalized

you speak about how vicodin should be used instead of marijuana yet you conviently left out...how dangerous vicodin could be. vicodin is easily addictive and this comes with many negative side affects..nausea.rashes.dizziness...this can also lead to more signifigant symptoms such as ireregular heartrate, and hallucinations. Vicodin is so addictive that if discontuined too quickly..seizures can occur....sounds just as dangerous as medical marijuana.. if theres a chance that it may help why shouldnt we take it? ...you say negatives affects but then list the munchies?....although maybe not the greatest for your weight i dont see how the munchies is a negative affect..it dosent do anything wrong.....when you state that they will go down the street to their "friendly" drug dealer..that happens today..if we legalize for medical purposes..maybe it would stop that from happening...but even if it dosent stop it its not that it can make it worse...it already occurs! and also you seem to be missing the point im not saying to legalize it for everyday people but for those who are sick and are prescribed by a doctor to need it. personally i dont see that it does more harm. i think it does more good. the amount of illnesses it can help outnumbers the amount of negative affects scientists are studying into the future of medical marijuana to fight the negative affects that it has...a recent report from the institute of medicine of the US has done just this. There is currently an oral medication using marijuana that will mimic the postive affects marijuana has without as many harmful negative affects. researchers are also looking at using a vaporizer or inhaler so people can have the affects of marijuana without inhaling the smoke.In some places this inhaler is already available and working. this research is making medical marijuana available without the harmful affects you are discussing....if this can be accomplished...there is no reason why those who are ill shouldnt be able to use it. all im saying is give something a chance before you turn it down. Scientists are studying the many ways we can use marijuana for postive purposes...WITHOUT the harmful purposes.
Marijuana should be legalized

Well your point was kind of saying that these people are getting it anyway, so why not make it legal so it can do some good while the people who abuse it continue do so, just not in as many words. "You are correct when you said that people use the system, but how many people currently still abuse it, and use marijuana even though it is illegal. Although marijuana is illegal hundreds of people still abuse it every day. If people want something they will get it no matter how hard it is if they want marijuana they will find a means of getting it. Making it legalized won't start a problem of abusing the drug, the problem is already here." And though i will say i must have over looked the points you did make in the last argument round. I now clearly read it, and you have shown sufficient evidence. however from the 2 points on MS, and Epilepsy, I'm going to pick out two words that were more or less key points to me anyway, those being "That it CAN" for Epilepsy, and "It MAY also" now i do agree that these are two very severe illness and we should take any precaution we can to try and help these people, but legalizing something that will just reduce pain and maybe help with the actual illness is not enough. Now i also agree that these people should live pain free however there are plenty of other legal painkillers out there that have the same effect on pain, such as Vicodin. Which is a clearly legal painkiller and has an astonishing effect on pain, without bringing on some of the negatives of marijuana like for example the munchies, or also as i pointed out in my previous statement, the tar in the marijuana cigarettes. This can lead to much worse things such as heart, and lung issues. Not to say though that Vicodin comes with its own risks such as addiction, but when prescribed correctly a patient cannot necessarily become hooked on the drug since the doctors would spread it out over a time frame and usually not give any refills on the prescription. Causing the patient to limit the amount they take to the prescribed schedule and not just use it whenever, which is what would occur with marijuana since if they run out they would not necessarily have to go to a pharmacy to refill there prescription but would rather just go down the street or where ever it may be and pick up some more from your local "friendly" drug dealer. Personally that idea sickens me to no end. So again i ask you how can you justify legalizing a product that would do much more harm than its good, when there are other PROVEN alternatives to marijuana.
Marijuana should be legalized

I am not saying this should go to those people who dont need it for medical purposes, but for those who need it for medical purposes its a huge help.When i stated that it shoul be legalized i stated that it should be legalized for medical purposes. and It does more then deal with some side effects of pain, nausea, and aneroxia. if you read my previous round you would be aware of this,,i will state two of the points again..you may read the rest over yourself. MS: numerous case studies have also reported improvement in patients treated with symptoms of MS including spasticity. 'have been shown in animal models to measurably lessen the symptoms and it may also halt the progression of the growing disease. Epilepsy The British Epilepsy Association stated on its website (accessed May 3, 2006): "There is scientific evidence to suggest that cannabis may be beneficial in treating a number of conditions, including epilepsy.... Some reports suggest that it can reduce seizures. do you have any idea how painful some of these diseases could be if it can ease the pain, why not take use it? its not a selfish need to obtain a high but a desperate attempt to try to ease pain. and sometimes it does more then just ease the pain for your information...even if it dosent dont these people who are suffering deserve to live without pain for a little while? if you were the one suffering from a disease i think it would greatly change your point of view
Marijuana should be legalized

So, what you are centering your argument around is that yes it is illegal, yet people do it anyway, so why not make it legal for those people to do it, but it's okay that were making it legal and fueling this extremely unhealthy habit, (I'll get to this don't worry) because it has some helpful side effects when dealing with pain, nausea, and anorexia? Now I say it is unhealthy because it has been proven that one marijuana cigarette has a tar count then 10 standard nicotine cigarettes, yet. The Marijuana does not have the same toxic makeup of the nicotine, or the addictiveness. So though it is a slight plus compared to nicotine it still does a lot of harm to person's body. Also onto your facts, you are simply stating that medicinal marijuana only helps with pain, and side effects of treatments it does not have any effect on the actual illness. You also state that it may alleviate some symptoms, but in the long run has no real beneficial impact on the illness. So i stand by my fact that though it may do some good in the long run it will just fuel people selfish need to just obtain a high.
Marijuana should be legalized

Now then let the games begin. A. You say that medicinal marijuana can CAN be a safe and effective treatment. For some very serious medical conditions that are a huge concern for our society. Of the conditions you did state, i will say you are valid on 1 of them. That being pain, as to my knowledge Marijuana does act as sort of a pain killer, except without the high of some of the other pain killers out there like vicodin. But that goes to say how much pain would be required to needed for one to get said medicinal marijuana. To go on, one could simply fake pain to abuse the system, trust if it is legalized that would happen in great numbers. Furthermore, I would like to know how that is if you can show it to me if not it is of no matter, how it can help treat such illnesses such as AIDS, Cancer, epilepsy, etc. B. Now also how would you ensure that it is actually getting to those who need it and it is not just going to any random person who can present a card or something saying they have legal access to the marijuana? I say without at least a proper way of ensuring it gets to the right people Marijuana should remain illegal. Since there has also been no proven way to ensure all laws are enforced, since there is always a loophole or an exception of some kind. No one can justify making marijuana legal since it could and would be abused by a variety of people. No matter what the medicinal trials show about the drug, and how it MAY benefit people. Legalizing Marijuana would only fuel the rampant illegal use of it in our nation. It would give people a reason to then abuse the system and obtain marijuana for their own personal and selfish needs. It could also cause a lot of corruption in the form of a pharmacist selling said Marijuana on the streets or, in the back for a huge profit of their own personal gain.
Marijuana should be legalized

Marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. 15 of 50 US States and DC have legalized the medical use of marijuana. It can be a safe and effective treatment for the symptoms of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, pain, glaucoma, epilepsy, and other conditions. Scientific studies show that for many years marijuana has pointed to medicinal help. Six of these studies sponsored by U.S. states in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrate that smoking marijuana reduces nausea and reduces pain for many patients, especially those facing cancer chemotherapy and glaucoma. Plus thousands of patients and their families and doctors have experienced and witnessed the medical benefits of marijuana. They have testified at public hearings and appeared in the media with these findings. Too many people are suffering from these diseases and if marijuana can help them, we should legalize it so they can get better.
Individualism is societally destructive

I've made this impossible for anyone to accept, if anyone wants to debate this comment or PM me. Individualism is defined by Merriam Webster as: "a doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount"Destruction is synonymous with ruinous. My advocacy will essentially be that the individualism that has sweeped the world, particularly the West, since the enlightenment is responsible for many of society's current ills, along with showing sociologically the inevitable effects of such an individualistic state of mind. No semantics, I have no interest arguing over what societally destructive means. If my opponent tries to make this an issue, they forfeit the debate.
should students be allowed use of cell phones in school/class

Well if a shooting did happen the office is supposed to call and students ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THEIR CELLPHONES SHUTOFF ENTIRELY! Because if a shooter walks by a dark classroom, and a cellphone rings, he's gonna pop a cap in everyone's arse... The office calls the police so that there phone lines aren't going to be flooded. That and students don't have that responsibility, they are supposed to sit quietly and wait, until police arrive, because it may not have been your teacher, but trust me. someone will call the police. And unless told to do so, the cellphones are to remain off.
should students be allowed use of cell phones in school/class

That is what crhomebooks, and ipads are for. They allow more interaction, while still being able to be controlled by the school. This is necessary, as kids wouldn't just use there phones for an instant dictionary. Students would use them to text, and play games, and snapchat each other. We need more control in the classroom's. And getting rid of cellphones in school would be a big first step for the schools.
Abortion

"If abortion was officially criminal homicide, then no state would even allow it right now. And there's a difference; abortion deals with the life that a woman must handle for nine months while homicide is just killing another being whether you know them or not." Many states do not recognize the life of a fetus as a person; therefore, they do not see it as a criminal offence. Also, your nine months argument would justify the killing of a nine-month old (post-birth) infant, so it is not valid. You by your own admission recognize the life of a fetus, as the life of a human, so therefore, for the purposes of this debate; abortion would count as criminal homicide. "Also, would a miscarriage be considered murder? I bet you would say no" A miscarriage is not a murder because it is accidental. Abortion is the planned, intentional, killing of a human, therefore it is murder. My opponent then called me cocky, which warrants the deduction of a conduct point.I have provided a case for why abortion should not be allowed, I have refrained from using ad-hominem arguments, and I used the only source, therefore I urge you to vote Con!!
Abortion

If abortion was officially criminal homicide, then no state would even allow it right now. And there's a difference; abortion deals with the life that a woman must handle for nine months while homicide is just killing another being whether you know them or not. Also, would a miscarriage be considered murder? I bet you would say no. By the way, I'm actually on both sides that's why I acknowledged that it's a human life, but this website doesn't allow for that even though there are good arguments for both sides. And don't be too cocky, sir. It's just an online debate and I need this for an assignment. It's not like you're running for president in 2016, but thank you for your input; it's truly valued.
Abortion

In most abortion debates, con has to prove that the fetus is a human being in order to justify banning abortion, however, Pro has already made my case by stating “I do understand that it is a human life”, essentially handing me this debate. By stating that the fetus is a human life, killing a fetus is criminal homicide (1). Now that you have admitted the fetus is a human life, to say that abortion should be a legal choice is like saying that I should be able to walk up to you-and shoot you to death, legally. I have shown that according to Pro’s own admission, that abortion is murder, and that it should not be allowed. Pro has not made any arguments (and it is debate etiquette not to make new arguments in the final round), and therefore you should vote con!!!!! Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion

This is a touchy subject, but abortion is present in modern times. In some sense, I am for abortion. I say this because sometimes things happen that people cannot control. For example, if a woman is raped, I think she should have the right to decide whether or not if she wants to end the pregnancy; if she is willing to end it then abortion should be left open as an option for her. Just like everything else, it is a decision; if the child is born, the woman decides many things such as the name of the child, school it attends, clothes it wears and food it eats. Abortion, just like the other examples, is simply another decision about the child. I do understand that it is a human life, and that is why the man and the woman should actually sit down and make a decision about what they want to do. If a couple is not financially ready to care for another life, then they should not attempt to have a child.
There's nothing wrong with being a bit sexist sometimes.

We are not talking about sex discrimination, misogyny or chauvinism here - just a little bit of harmless, light-hearted recognition that men are different to women - surely that that fact should be celebrated rather than disguised? Sexism is a relatively recent concept, brought to the public's attention by the feminist movement towards the end of the last century, and which has only really received general acceptance in certain Western societies. I contend that men and women should not be afraid to highlight the distinctions between one another's genders, provided that this is done humorously rather than offensively.
For An Experienced Person It Would Be Better To Carry A Sturdy Butter Knife Than A Lethal One

These round rules must be followed or else conduct is forfeited and the possibility of recieving "better arguments" is too. Definitions: Experienced person - Someone who is skilled in self defence and particularly in is case, with a knife. They can skillfully defend themselves with a knife. They know what they are doing and have been trained. Better - Better. .. Better in most ways. Let's say war. War is bad, people die. But war is good, helps economy. Economically and socially scaled is an example. War is still better although it is not supported socially with the given arguments. You should know what i mean. Everything is thrown together. Not morally, not socially, but better or not. Sturdy butter knife - Not some cruddy mass-produced butter knife you'd buy in Walmart. One you could maybe drop from a high bridge, stab concrete, or run over with a truck and it would not break. Sturdy. And designed and shaped in a way that is like an average butter knife. Lethal one - A pocket knife designed for self defence and killing. Capable of killing and such. One designed to cut human flesh.
For An Experienced Person It Would Be Better To Carry A Sturdy Butter Knife Than A Lethal One

By definition here the person could skillfully defend themselves. The point of carrying a weapon to defend yourself is to have a fighting chance. And actually for a group a blunt object would be better because all it has to do is connect somewhere instead of stab or cut something meaningful. A sharp object can also get caught on things. But getting-robbed theory isn't relevent, they can defend themselves and all they have to do is exchange a slash for a stab in a technique called "defanging the snake". Whenever a swing is taken at you you just strike their hand or arm. There is also a huge target. In a fight it is likely the the aggressor will win because of the advantage but the defender has a huge advantage just being the defender. It is actually hard to kill a person. A man with a knife doesn't scare me and it shouldn't scare anyone who knows how to defend themselves. As soon as anyone would land a good hit on some assailant the assailant would know this person is not the person to rob. That's how it works. A cornered animal is also more scary than an attacking one. As long as the defender here isn't blitzkrieged they will win. A blunt weapon is also much more likely to disable something than a cutting weapon. A cutting weapon actually has to cut and break the thing to disable it. A cutting weapon has to cut to hurt. A blunt weapon only has to smack something, it doesn't matter how it hits, it just has to hit. A butter knife also has the effect of seeming harmless, but is still metal. A butter knife is actually a formidable weapon. I think a butter knife would beat a normal knife.
For An Experienced Person It Would Be Better To Carry A Sturdy Butter Knife Than A Lethal One

A lethal knife has more killing potential than a butter knife. But first, what's your definition of experienced? Is it experience as in past experiences or training experiences For the training experiences one, in self-defence, an experienced person would have a lot more trouble disabling an opponent with a butter knife than a lethal knife. Most "self-defence" tactics are really quite... misleading. No offense to the self-defence tutors, but things NEVER go according to plan. That person right in front of you trying to harm you IS trying to harm you and not just trying to practice with you. They won't do all those fancy jabs and swings. They'll just run towards you and go: stab, stab, stab, stab, stab. They have the intention to kill. A simple butter knife won't do it. For one, even if you do land a hit, that means they'll probably land a hit on you too. Simple, they're probably experienced. A person who's inexperienced won't go alone to thug someone with a knife. They'll probably bring a gang or a gun or something that gives them an advantage. They'll probably also jump you. They'll follow you into an alley or a lone street or whatnot and just suddenly start attacking you. They won't stop 20 metres away from you and yell "Hey! I'm gonna start stabbing you okay. Get ready!". So, what's all of this got to do with self-defence? First of all, having a butter knife is a horrible idea. It's not suited for disarming. Butter knives can only stab or club (I guess?). Their cutting edges are horrible. Knives can stab, slice, and club. In a gun fight, you should probably not pull out a knife in the first place. Plus, you can't find good butter knives these days... Second of all, experience is important in a fight. The more experienced person wins, right? Depends on the experience really. I mean who is more likely to win: a person who is experienced in using a knife or a person who's experienced in using a butter knife. I'm putting my money on the former. Plus, if you're experienced, then you'd know how to actually use a knife in such a way that you are not jeopardizing the life of the person in front of you. Plus, a knife would be great for intimidation.
For An Experienced Person It Would Be Better To Carry A Sturdy Butter Knife Than A Lethal One

How would using a sturdy butter knife be more beneficial for self defense than a lethal one? My argument is that it would still hurt like heck and they don't have to get hurt. The person stabbed would still be injured quite a bit but not possibly fatally. The idea is that the pain would be disabling and surprising. Or they would freak out because they are threatening you with your life (the ideal or worst case scenario situation) and you pull out a non-lethal object but look you know very well what you are doing. The handle can also be used as a bashing weapon. If the blade of the butter knife is by your thumb if you can get their right hand out of the way you would have a nasty shot at the side of their head. Given this is an experienced person it wouldn't matter if the other person had a knife. If the other person had a gun it would require very different protocol but you wouldn't pull a knife on someone threatening you with a gun. If they didn't have a weapon they have no chance of doing anything unless they really know how to fight. In a knife vs knife situation The more experienced person is more likely to win a fight, correct? But the advantage in all of this with the butter knife is that you don't have to seriously injure the assailant. I don't think anyone wants to have to kill someone. Defending yourself is your priority but it requires an offense to defeat an offense. A weapon to defeat a weapon. But what if nobody had to get hurt and justice was more likely to be served? The butter knife is more beneficial to use for self defense if the person with it is experience and trained. And if it is an experienced person trained in self defense they don't really even need a knife to win but it is obviously very helpful. An experienced person could make the cardboard tube of a paper towel roll connect with someone, but for an effective and non-lethal solution a sturdy butter knife is a great choice.
ALL women secretly value physical strength above all else in a man.

You can't change your topic. Maybe that's what you had in mind, but the topic clearly states all women, and above all traits. You keep on being untopical, and changing the original topic. "already PROVEN by science" You don't cite this anywhere. I don't believe science shows all women prefer someone strong than over someone kind, romantic, etc. "discredit me all you like, it's alot easier than disproving biological truth" I'm arguing why your arguments don't suffice, this is a debate. I'm not arguing against you as a person. Also, you have to prove this "truth", the burden is on you, not for me to disprove "The fact is everywhere" Not for me Do the voters think pro has affirmed? Kindness, romantic, wealth, race, smart, talented etc.