BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
School should start later (Rematch)

Just because a parent said that their child has to go to bed doesn't mean that the student will. More often than not the child sneaks out of the house, I've been guilty of doing so on more than one occasion. Their are too many what if's about that statment. ArgumentsSchool days beginning after 8 a.m. have many benefits for students, especially those in middle and high school, according to Psychology Today. These benefits include better academic performance, fewer absences and even improved health. However, early start times do have some advantages that may be worth considering. Students who begin earlier have more time for after-school jobs and activities; schools may benefit by saving some money; and parents might find that an early start works better with their schedules. Academics While studies show there are academic advantages to later start times for adolescents, schools that begin early in the day still can excel academically. According to an article in the Baltimore Post-Examiner, Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland has 30 high schools, and the three ranked highest by U.S. News and World Report for college readiness and algebra and English proficiency all begin classes at 7:25 a.m. Starting the day early also means more time for after-school tutoring and that student-athletes miss fewer classes to travel to after-school competitions. More Time for Activities A 2001 study showed that school administrators cited extracurricular activities as a major reason why high school campuses would rather start earlier in the day. Sports needing to practice outdoors have more daylight, and students walking home from these activities can take advantage of the extra daylight for their safety. In some cases, students may need to travel, and an early start and release may mean more time in the evening for homework and family. High school students also have more time for after-school jobs. Transportation Costs Schools may also be able to save up to 30 percent on transportation costs by starting some campuses early and staggering start times within the district. This method saves money by allowing drivers to run more than one route at a time, so fewer buses and drivers are needed. Lubbock ISD in Texas is anticipating saving more than 1 million dollars by utilizing start times prior to 8 a.m. at some campuses. Suffolk Public Schools in Virginia estimates that by starting some campuses at 7:25 a.m. they will be able to save around $680,000 a year. This schedule also means shorter bus rides for students and less time sitting in traffic. Better for Parent Schedules There are specific advantages for parents if younger grades have early start times. Starting school early may eliminate the need for morning childcare if parents are able to drop off their kids before work. They may drop them off at a center that buses them to their campus later in the morning. After school, the daycare picks up the students and parents retrieve their children in the evening from the center. This is necessary for some parents to have time to travel to work, especially if they have a longer commute.
School should start later (Rematch)

They aren't really more likely to go to bed later if they get up later as long as they have parents who will make them go to bed and go to sleep earlier. Yes, staying the same could teach their mind to get up for work, but what if they have a job that starts in the afternoon (for example, a night shift as a security guard), or at 6 AM (for example, some teachers, or if they have work a few hours away)?
School should start later (Rematch)

Okay, I accept. Yes that is right although the "technical" term for it is "final round blitzkrieg".I have no excuse for what I did and appreciate the oppurtunity to make up for my mistakes.You say more sleep however there is one important fact you forgot. If teens can get up later then they are more than likely to got to bed later. I can see why you say teens need a lot of sleep but if you stay the same then it teaches their minds to get up for work unlike starting later.
Marijuana legalization

Thank you for posting your last argument. In no where in your posts did you say that you wanted to debate legitimate reasons, just reasons. You admitted that I have given you reasons, you said "Anyone can come up with REASONS why they think the opposite." You failed to make your argument clear, therefore I debated on what you wrote, not what you wanted. Yes, you have avoided things that I have said. The whole thing about selling to children, you did not even comment on that matter. There is a reason right there. You want to keep the government out of this, yet you still want to debate legal things? I am sorry but that is impossible, the government makes the laws. Audience, I have clearly shown the reason why the Marijuana is illegal. It is up to you to believe it or not yet it is still a reason. I have clearly won spelling, conduct, and sources. Who had more of a convincing argument is up to you. Thank you. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marijuana legalization

With all due respect, why would i want you to tell me why the government thinks marijuana should be illegal? I know that, i could easily have found that out. I'm here to debate and discuss whether these reasons are legitimate and whether the reasons are enough to make marijuana illegal. I'm here to debate whether or not marijuana should be illegal, i thought that was clear. This is not a war on technicalities. I said there is no reason marijuana should be illegal. Anyone can comes up with reasons why they think the opposite. I'm here to determine whether these reasons hold true and constitutue a law. I know the so called "adequate" reasons that marijuana use is banned. I want to debate those reasons not have you name them for me and say i'm done i win. You simply stated some of the side effects, not why those effects should make the use of weed illegal. I'm not avoiding anything here, i'm sure of my claim and will debate whatever issue you'd like. I'm not picking and choosing. Please, i challenge you to put up whatever you'd like to for me to argue against. My original arguement --- "Marijuana is fun to use, no doubt about it, there should be no reason why it's illegal. Moderate use poses lung damage of little to none. It is not physically addicting, it has no permanent mental effects. It is no more immoral than alcohol. The smoke is much much cleaner than cigarette smokes and people who smoke cigarettes smoke all the time whereas weed you don't usually smoke all the time. Basically marijuana is harmless besides the carcinogenic smoke that can be avoided by using a vaporizer. Have you ever heard of a car accident involving marijuana? Have you ever heard of crimes, accidents, or violence involving marijuana? Does anyone have any real evidence that marijuana should have ever been illegal?" I said there should be no reason why it's illegal. I didn't asked for an opinion generated by the government. I'm looking for evidence why marijuana should be illegal as i stated in my last sentence. I still stand my by statement that there should be no reason why it's illegal. I want reasons that support the opposing position.
Marijuana legalization

Thank you for posting your next argument. My opponent says that the point of this debate is not to see the reason why its illegal, but instead to see why it should be legal. If he wanted that kind of debate he should have started a debate with the resolution "Marijuana should be legalized" My opponent did not say that, he said that there is no REASON why marijuana is illegal. I have already said what a reason is, a basis or cause, as for some BELIEF. The people who legalized marijuana believed that there were some hazards. My opponent also just picks certain things that he can argue and does not argue my against everything I say. Even though my opponent has one more round left, I heavily urge a con vote. Thank you.
Marijuana legalization

I asked "Does anyone have any real evidence that marijuana should have ever been illegal?" I could give reasons why, in my opinion, why planting more than two trees on your property is illegal, this does not mean the reasons are legitimate and this does not mean the reasons support the issues of legality. The after math is actually almost non-exist. The temporary effects are what we argue and i have explained that they pose no danger to you or others. You can listed the reasons given by the government on why marijuana is illegal but i asked for proof for marijuana rightfully being illegal, not the other. You don't win a debate by stating the reasons that marijuana is illegal you win a debate by stating and proving the marijuana should be illegal. There's a difference. If i wanted the government's opinion on pot i could look it up. I want to be convinced that marijuana should be illegal and i haven't been obliged yet. You may be good at debating but the truth is it's hard to debate against such a lost cause. There's is nothing wrong with weed. The substance itself isn't as much illegal as is the indirect effects such as economical effects, political effects, ect. Thanks and good luck
Marijuana legalization

My opponent says that all people have to do is use a vaporizer to be okay. Again, just becuase my opponent does something does not mean that everyone will. I keep reasons why Marijuana is illegal and all my opponent does is try to make the after math seem a bit better. All my opponent has done is wrote a few words, then copied and pasted the rest. I have already listed the reason why Marijuana is illegal, therefore winning this debate. Sadly my opponent can not use his own words in order to win a debate. My opponent also failed to say anything about what I said about the children. All I had to do is show the reason, it has been shown. Thank you.
Marijuana legalization

Thank you for posting your next argument. A reason: A basis or cause, as for some belief. You specifically said there's no reason why marijuana should be illegal. I believe that I have already shown you at least one reason why it is illegal. I will state yet another reason, children. Smoking is already the cool thing to do for kids. But the moment some dealers find out that marijuana is legal and they can get as much as they want, they will be selling to kids. Since marijuana is so "harmless" Then it should be okay for kids to take it, right? Also, you keep talking about using marijuana in moderate amounts. Just because you would take it in small amounts does not mean everyone else will. The longer you hold marijuana in, the more high you get. You experience what marijuana users call burnout. Read this clip from articlesbase.com "Burnout is a term basically acclimated by marijuana smokers themselves to call the outcomes of enduring use. Adolescent peoples who smoke marijuana greatly over sustained periods of time can become dull, lazy moving, and negligent. These "burned-out" users are sometimes so blind of their ambience that they do not acknowledge if accompany assert to them, and they do not catch they accept a problem." You said, "Increased heart rate reduced blood pressure, while this is a symptom, this doesn't pose any threat to your life." This statement is very wrong indeed. Increased heart rate makes the risk of a heart attack very high. here are some of the dangers of increased heart rate. 1. hypertension 2. weakening of epithelial tissue that makes up blood cells (this makes an individual more susceptible to aneurysms which is the bursting of blood vessels) 3. increased susceptibility to heart attacks You, for some reason, think that I said marijuana is morally wrong, in no way did I say that. What I am trying to show the reason marijuana is illegal. I would like to state a quote from Winston Churchill, "'A nation trying to tax itself to prosperity, is like a man standing in a bucket, trying to lift himself up by the handles." Concerning your argument on taxes, meth could also boost our economy. So could cocaine. Just because something would help our economy does not mean that it would help us. I look forward to your reply. Sources: (1). http://www.articlesbase.com... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca...
Marijuana legalization

I haven't gotten the formalities of debating down just yet so excuse my presentation. Well to start off, something that is illegal is only wrong within the context of a system that is setup. This does not make it globally and indefinitely wrong. Yes, an action that is illegal is a crime in this particular set of laws. Your statement included no fallacies but a crime is a harsh word that tends to give the impression of wrong-doing, when the truth is, there is nothing wrong about taking marijuana. It is illegal, it is a crime only because this government does not accept it. Before i go around in circles too much, i'll address the symptoms you've listed above. Distorted perception- i would say, sensually, marijuana is less debilitating than alcohol. While you are under a certain level of influence in these areas, i have to say you are far from dysfunctional. The summation of the effects being nothing more than moderately uncoordinated. Problems with memory- yes, while not completely impairing, there are times when your memory is a bit fuzzy. This wouldn't put you or anyone else in any immediate danger. Problems with learning- I am confident in saying that marijuana makes you think much more than usual. While i cannot vouch for any argument directly against this i cannot say that this is true either. As i said above lack of coordination is a moderate effect. Trouble with think problem solving- I don't believe there is any evidence to support this, in fact i can personally say this is the opposite of what really happens. In some situations you may become unfocused bu in others you may be hyper focused and able to think deeply about certain things. Definitely not conventional problem solving but i have to say thought seems to be increased while under the influence. Increased heart rate reduced blood pressure, while this is a symptom, this doesn't pose any threat to your life. I doubt there has been any marijuana related deaths or illnesses outside of lung cancer (which i don't believe marijuana smoke can cause by itself). Increased heart rate is a bit scary but nothing happens to you and your heart actually can be strengthened by this just as any other heart exercise would do. While these effects are mostly true, it gives the government no right to outlaw the use of marijuana. If it's a morality issue, ban alcohol too, if it's not, then accept the fact the the money put towards catching, jailing, and dealing with weed-related crimes is a larger debt than that of what you'd be losing because of the poor ability the regulate the taxes of weed. The temporary effects are minimally dangerous and the positive effects such as euphoria outweighs any short term negative. There aren't any longterm effects. All i have to say is don't operate heavy machinery under the influence, besides that, have fun! :) Thanks, and looking forward to a response.
Marijuana legalization

My opponent is arguing that there is no reason why marijuana should be legal. Marijuana is the most popular drug in America. Many people, especially the younger generation, believe the lie that marijuana has very little health problems. This is not true. Some of the short term effects are: 1. Distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch). 2. Problems with memory and learning. 3. Loss of coordination. 4. Trouble with thinking and problem-solving. 5. Increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure. This list alone is enough to show why marijuana was made illegal, though I will say something more. My opponent says "Have you ever heard of crimes, accidents, or violence involving marijuana" Yes, I have indeed. Taking marijuana is illegal, so therefore it is a crime in itself. There have been accidents from people drinking and smoking marijuana, and there has been violence when police try to arrest people with marijuana in their possession. I will continue my argument in round two. Thank you. Sources: (1). . http://faculty.washington.edu...
Marijuana legalization

Marijuana is fun to use, no doubt about it, there should be no reason why it's illegal. Moderate use poses lung damage of little to none. It is not physically addicting, it has no permanent mental effects. It is no more immoral than alcohol. The smoke is much much cleaner than cigarette smokes and people who smoke cigarettes smoke all the time whereas weed you don't usually smoke all the time. Basically marijuana is harmless besides the carcinogenic smoke that can be avoided by using a vaporizer. Have you ever heard of a car accident involving marijuana? Have you ever heard of crimes, accidents, or violence involving marijuana? Does anyone have any real evidence that marijuana should have ever been illegal?
the bible does not say that masturbation is a sin

you say your arguments from scripture are shown in "no uncertain terms". but this is clearly not the case, as if that were true, there could be no logical uncertainty, no plausible uncertainty, no reasonable uncertainty, all which exist here. vanity, lust, lusciousness, these are all sins that could be covered by other sins, going too far in lusting, coveting, adultery, sleeping around, homosexuality if you find that blame worthy, beastiality, could go on and on, etc. going overboard in masturbation anyone would have to agree is wrong. you could lump masturbation in with all that, but we see no reason to from elsewhere in scripture, and we've got plenty of "natural law" weight behind it being natural, so i see no reason why we'd throw it in with all that.
the bible does not say that masturbation is a sin

the two passages that are often used as proof that masturbation is wrong, are usually misinterpreted. one is onan. God said to onan, to impregnate his deceased brother's wife. instead, onan pull out, and spilled his seed on the ground. many argue that what was wrong here is that he spilled his seed, it went to unproductive use etc, that masturbation is likewise a sin. however, it's pretty clear that God was mad because he didnt follow his command to impregnate her. the other is in Matthew. Jesus says something to the effect of 'whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart". this makes some argue that if you even lust after a woman, which is usually the case with masturbation, you sin. the problem, is that the original word for "lust" is the same word, teated the same, as the word "covet". no one can really take the ten commandment bans on coveting your neighbor's wife or things, in too literal a sense. covet means something indordinate, not something like just wanting or admiring your neighbor's wife and things. covet means "best understood as forbidding fixing one"s desire upon obtaining something that is not rightfully one"s own". here is more on the use of covet and lust. http://www.jasonstaples.com... this fits my original interpetation of the verse "you would if you could". would you sleep with a man's wife if you could? then youve done the sin in your heart, even if you didnt actually do it. it also highlights that what's wrong here is unlawful marriage coveting. notice he didn't say the person commits fornication, or "unlawful sex". Jesus is probably stressing coveting a man's wife, not just lustful thoughts in general, and not even necessarily unmarried women.
the bible does not say that masturbation is a sin

Pro attempts to obfuscate the issue at hand with questions and arguments of natural law. Unfortunately, the debate is not about natural law or what animals do or what comes naturally. What the "scientific community" states is irrelevant. The debate is over the Bible's views on masturbation and its nature. We are not discussing pedophilia. I am confused as to that point. Neither is "doing what is natural" ever a defense of action in the realm of sin and religion. Many would say that to find your spouse in an adulterous relationship and killing them and their lover is a natural reaction. Yet the Bible clearly states, "Thou shalt not kill." According to Genesis 1, man was created in the image of God. We are the representative of God on this earth. In the chain of authority, any person is responsible to those above, not defended by simulating action of those beneath. (i.e. the animal kingdom.) If Pro wanted to argue that despite what the Bible says, they intend to masturbate anyway, that is each and every person's personal perogative. Obedience to the Word of God has ever been a choice. I have shown that masturbation is considered to be a sin in the Bible. I've clearly defined it as both a mental sin and a physical act defined to be lasciviousness. Pro seems to only want to state that masturbation is natural and so they will continue, yet can't sincerely argue that omits it from being wrong in the eyes of God. To walk after the Spirit, we know means we won't fulfill the lusts of the flesh. In my humble opinion, the point is moot either way, because Romans 3:23 says all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death. (Rom. 6:23). Romans 1 says Christ died for the ungodly, though. Where sin did abound, grace did much more abound. The important question is, What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid.
the bible does not say that masturbation is a sin

you question me on natural law, but i can point out many animals who masturbate. and it is a natural bodily function. not only all this, experts agree it is a normal, healthy activity. it actually promotes health. all these smart, scientific experts wouldnt be telling us to do something that was against the natural order. http://www.webmd.com... are we to trust con's obscure interpretation of vague and obscure verses, over the scientific establishment, and over the most reasonable interpretations and understandings of the bible? if it was so clear as con indicates, there wouldn't be so many people in these debates, see comments etc, who agree that the bible does not say masturbation is a sin. these are all people who are capable of reading, and are bright individuals. con can only say it's "clear" cause to him it fits the vague definitions listed. but that doesn't mean it's what the bible is referring to. PS i would add pedophilia to that list of sexual sins. just to show there's plenty that is disordered sexually, that doesnt have to do with masturbation. you say your arguments from scripture are shown in "no uncertain terms". but this is clearly not the case
the bible does not say that masturbation is a sin

Pro claims there is "plenty of 'natural law' weight behind [masturbation] being natural. Since there has been zero such evidence presented, I would like to point out that we do not, in fact have any thing of the sort.Playing silly semantics games also in no way alleviates the fact that masturbation is, by definition, lasciviousness. It is not lumped in with that sin. It is that sin. You also cannot lump lasciviousness in with other sexual sins because it is listed side by side with those sins as in Mark 7: 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: Lasciviousness is clearly not adultry or fornication (which classification sodomy would fall into) but a seperate sin.Masturbation is a sin of the mind as well and I have pointed out that God expects the mind to be sanctified for his use as well as the body.Masturbation is clearly sin.