BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana is bad.

Now, if something is harmful for you, I hardly see how that is favourable, or 'good', my opponent is simply trying to use wordplay to win this debate. As I can list several more things that Marijuana negatively impact, I will do so now. 1) The use of Marijuana distorts your perception, reduces coordination, and causes relaxation of the muscles, which would highly impair driving ability, a higher risk of a car accident is in no way, good. 2) It impairs ones ability to learn, and to form new memories, which is in no way good. 3)It destroys tumour-suppressant genes, which help fight cancer. 4)It contains carcinogens, which CAUSE cancer. 5) Users may become lazy, unmotivated, or "burnouts" Not only has my opponent not provided any evidence to his HIV claim, but my opponent also seems to misunderstand what HIV is, and what Marijuana does. HIV is short for "Human immunodeficiency virus", meaning their immune system isn't functioning properly. Now, studies have shown that Marijuana is actually an "immunosuppressant"; Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smoker's body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a. k. a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. How harming your immune system while having HIV/AIDs would be beneficial is beyond me. As for the Alzheimers theory, the study my opponent linked is nearly four years old, while newer research shows no benefits from smoking Marijuana in relation to Alzheimers. Furthermore, it has infact been proven to be the OPPOSITE, instead actually causing harm instead of health! Unless my opponent can refute the claims of it having no good effect on the lungs, brain, heart, etcetera, then I shall assume he concedes to my points that it is 'bad' by his very narrow definition. I eagerly wait for my opponents response, and I urge a vote on the Pro side of this argument, thank you. . http://cyber.law.harvard.edu...... . http://www.sciencedaily.com...... . http://www.nida.nih.gov...... . http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk...... . http://faculty.washington.edu...... . http://www.uc.edu......
Marijuana is bad.

Since I started the debate and get to set the parameters, I'd still like to use the original definition of bad: Bad - not good in any manner or degree. The object of this debate is for you to prove that Marijuana is not good in any manner or degree. Since you have failed to release any information on how Marijuana is not good in any manner or degree, I'll let you have the next round to do so. However, I will say that Marijuana is good on several accounts: 1) Studies in HIV patients have yielded that those who smoked pot had a greater increase in lymphocytes, the cells which combat disease. <---This is good, yes? 2) Scientists have found that the active ingredient in marijuana can prevent the progression of Alzheimer's disease. <---Good without a doubt. . There are MANY more things that make Marijuana good; however, I would like to see you disprove these before I post any more reasons. **. http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com...... **. http://chickenmafia.com......
Marijuana is bad.

Now, if I may change usage of the word "bad" as there are several definitions and I do not want this debate to be won through simple wordplay. Bad; Having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible Causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful Disobedient, naughty, or misbehaving Not in keeping with standard or conduct Since I have the burden of proof I will start with a few small contentions. Contention 1) Smoking Marijuana is detrimental to the users health. Marijuana is harmful when smoked, you are inhaling a foreign substance that contains tar and irritates the lungs, not to mention the effects on the brain, and other health issues stemming from Marijuana use. Some health risk to the lungs include: 1) Coughing and phlegm problems, shortness of breath, and frequent wheezing, 2)Burning and stinging of the mouth and throat 3)Promotion of cancer in the respiratory tract 4)Chronic bronchitis 5)Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease In fact, some of the short term effects can even cause death! When you smoke Marijuana the users risk of heart attack quadruples within the first hour of smoking, so why risk death just to get "high"? There are many more negative effects, risk, and reasons as to how Marijuana is bad, though I'll save them for the next round. . http://dictionary.reference.com...... . http://www.medic8.com...... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......
Marijuana is bad.

I hope for a good, clean debate - My opponent is extremely 'Con' when it comes to anything involving marijuana. He does not agree that marijuana is useful in any manner, so I took it upon myself to post a debate topic outlining the most generic statement that would successfully describe his views on the 'drug'. I will start by outlining a few definitions: Bad - not good in any manner or degree. Good - satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree. Satisfactory - giving or affording satisfaction. Satisfaction - the act of satisfying; fulfillment; gratification; Since my opponent will be debating the Pro side, I will let him start the debate. **Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...... http://dictionary.reference.com...... http://dictionary.reference.com...... http://dictionary.reference.com......
Anarcho-Capitalism does not equal Anarchism

As this is our concluding round, I will be brief in summation. While PRO has illustrated that Capitalism, and by extension Anarcho-Capitalism, is an exploitative system that is difficult to live in without acceptance of some form of dominion through labor, CON extends the standing core argument: There is no hierarchy coded into Anarcho-Capitalism, and thus any choice to adhere to some sort of Hierarchy, is just that: Choice. As such, I rest my case and urge you to vote CON. And my thanks to my opponent for the debate.
Anarcho-Capitalism does not equal Anarchism

Economic freedom is NOT absolute freedom. That I can choose to buy more has nothing to do with whether or not that choice exists. That I choose to work more and earn more is also entirely self-directed. But I can also choose not to work. In an ideal Anarcho-Capitalist state, the one who refuses to work is neither to be scorned nor looked up to. Rather, if he or she can make his or her own way in the world without money, more power to them. Likewise, the one who holds the most money has no special power. Remember that in a capitalist state that is not anarchistic in nature, the capitalists, the wealthy, are largely propped up by the fact that IF their way is defected against, you WILL b put in prison. Not so in our Anarcho-Capitalist utopia. You MAY work hard and earn. You MAY not. But the only consequences your actions will have will be those that effect you directly. Hunger. Cold. Ill health. What-have-you. But at no point will anyone come and enforce rules or force a hierarchy on you. The wealthy man will hold no authority that you do not freely grant by virtue of wanting to curry his good favor. Without rules or government, Capitalism is not a rigid system, but rather a non-system in which the existence and representative value of money is acknowledged. But NOT enforced. Without the threat of force, there can be no structure, and lacking in that structure, there can be no hierarchy. Again I say, with no hierarchy, Anarchy is achieved.
Anarcho-Capitalism does not equal Anarchism

What are you talking about?Just by the simple fact that you own more money gives you more economic freedom.You are free to make grander financial decisions than one who has less and you are able to have a stable, well fed lifestyle.Once you are an Employer/Shareholder/Capitalist, you are in a postion of authority and you now have the right to pay that individual however much you want to pay them in return for their labor (That's only if in this Anarcho-Capitalistic society had no established minimum wage) and you basically FORCE your employees to do whatever you ask them to do, or their position as a puppet in your strings earning meager wages will be threatened! The have barely any say in any of the decisions you make regarding their employee status because YOU ARE THE EMPLOYER and you HAVE THE POWER. "I would not have the right to tell you what to do, nor would I have the right to FORCE you to work for me. You could work for whomever you chose, or choose to not work at all. The consequences of those choices would be your own, but I in no way would hold power over you in any way shape or form. " -ConThe worker has a choice, really? What kind of choice is it to pick between one or the other form of wage slavery. Which puppeteer do I want to control me and rob me? The one who is the least cruel puppeteer? The one who will exploit me the least?What are you talking about? The employer has all the power. That is why so many employers don't want to hire workers that belong to unions, because by being in a union, you automatically have more say in the matter.People don't CHOOSE to defer to those richer than them. People have to in order to survive. Most people will not just "simply not work" because they feel exploited.Many people will continue to work no matter how exploited they feel in order to earn their daily bread.An Anarcho-Capitalistic is not an Anarchy because it still upholds a hierarchical economic system that exploits people constantly. Capitalism does create a true hierarchy because the relationship between worker and Capitalist is definitely codified and upholds a very unequal distribution of power.
Anarcho-Capitalism does not equal Anarchism

Let me simply challenge your notion that Capitalism is by definition Hierarchical. In a truly anarcho-capitalist society, the fact that I have more money than you would in fact entitle me to no greater rights than you as an individual. I would not have the right to tell you what to do, nor would I have the right to FORCE you to work for me. You could work for whomever you chose, or choose to not work at all. The consequences of those choices would be your own, but I in no way would hold power over you in any way shape or form. In a true hierarchy, people's status over one another is somehow codified, if not into law, than into the structure of the organization or system in question. Should people CHOOSE to defer to those richer than them, this would only be their choice, not a system of hierarchy, therefore, the society in question would still be an anarchistic one.
Anarcho-Capitalism does not equal Anarchism

I'm a little leary of this debate because it seems largely rooted in definitions you have yet to provide. That being said, I understand both Capitalism and Anarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism as theories of political systems, so I'm happy to do my best. I am not passionate about Anarchy or Capitalism, so this is going to be Devil's advocate for me whichever way you slice it. I look forward to your argument. Good luck!
Anarcho-Capitalism does not equal Anarchism

Just to clarify, this debate deals more than with simply the loose definition of Anarchism, but what it means as a philosophy and how I believe that the Capitalist system contradicts with the philosophy of AnarchismI will explain in the second round why I don't think Anarcho-Capitalism qualifies as Anarchism based on my definitions and the definitions of the first Anarchists Con will argue that Anarcho-Capitalism is in fact Anarchism and how it does not contradict with the philosophy of Anarchism
Gay Marriage should be Illegal (4)

I'm not going to lie, I am absolutely for gay marriage. I resign this debate - is that allowed on this website? You have trumped me, and arguments for gay marriage are too judgemental, and too easy for someone of your calibre to rebut. I wish to thank Pro for the chance to debate, but I had put myself in to the position of being against gay marriage when i firmly believe gays have all rights. Sorry, and thanks
America Can't Be Made Great Unless We Nationalize Housing

I appreciate the argument my opponent brings, but he has brought up a totally different solution, which may very well be a more practical solution than mine. But, the problem is, I made an argument and I expected to hear why it can't work in some way. Maybe he thinks he can lower the deficit by laying off people? Okay. But this does nothing in terms of bringing jobs home. We still have some unemployed people to take care of. But putting them on section 8 and food stamps is cheaper than paying them all those high end wages. Okay, fair enough. Lower consumption. Less importing of foreign goods as a result. Not bad. But still, no job rise in productivity. No new industry. No exports created. Just is not enough to make America great. But thinning the fat is an outstanding idea still! I'll stick to my guns, because my smart cities are a hot bed for jobs to come home. I will agree partially with my opponent. Let's lay off all those people and get them some jobs building 3D printed homes with my plan. Nationalizing housing is not a socialist solution. Buying a product once, not eternally, is what makes Capitalism work. Capitalism is based on competition. What makes competition work is that we have choices to buy products and services in the market. No one in their right mind will pay for something over and over unless they are forced into doing it. This happens in servitude. The dark parts of history when humans were shackled and forced to give up their labors to their masters. Ironically, this is the rental contract. The current rental contract is not a choice, because 40% of the housing forces people into it. Socio-economic disadvantages force people into rentals. Logistical issues with those who can afford to buy are forced into the rental contract. All unnecessary with nationalized housing. By my opponents definition of buying a gallon of milk one time is Socialist and to have to eternally pay for a gallon of milk the rest of your life is Capitalism. After all, by implication, he called my plan to make everyone pay for housing once Socialist and to make them pay over and over Capitalism. If we had to apply the rental contact principle to all products and services, the economy would collapse. No one would be able to keep paying for every product and service several times over in their lifetime. This is the main reason why the rental contract and the principle it operates has a dilatory effect upon the economy and since it is the biggest bill, the dilatory is huge! The excess renters are paying is being used in anarchistic ways vs. lowering our cost of living and using a centralized development fund that could solve so many inefficient infrastructure problems we are facing today that increase our cost of living. Having to pay for housing only once, will lower our cost of living as well. It will lower our cost of living far more than laying off federal government employees. But, both together is a force to be reckoned with. Basically, nationalizing rentals it making Papa Trump the landlord.
Rap Battle Challenge

P*ssy? I'll take five with a side of fries, "toughie." Oh, me a p*ssy? You better a look at yourself wussy. Prostate cancer? The hell you thinking, it's cause is masterbatin'? At least I got a b*tch- you just alone, hidin' in a ditch. Prick? That lyric was so dumb it made my brain sick. Control stick? I guess thats what you call yo boyfriend's d*ck. Boy, Shel had more p*say than you could dream cuz' he worked for Playboy it will seem. My mom? Let's be honest, she wouldn't take you to the prom. Hepatitis B? What about you f*ckin your boyfriend's D? Lickety-split? Face it boy, you been in nothin' but the pit.
Rap Battle Challenge

B*tch. You heard me, B*TCH! When I'm done with you, your brain'll need a stitch Look man, I'mma just be blunt, Since I'll be smokin' one while I'm f**kin' your mother"s c*nt. You like The Giving Tree? The one by Shel Silverstein? The one who looks like a prison escapee? That sh*t"ll give you the STD hepatitis B, p*ssy. Callin' yourself "Negotiate"? Motherf*cker, no deal's gettin' you to home plate, It'll be yourself whom you"ll frustrate, After that b*tch gave you cancer in ya prostate. Alright, gotta end this lickety-split, And hand to you a toothpick to clean out your prick, You know what, you little dipsh*t lunatic? For this battle, I have the control stick!
Rap Battle Challenge

B****? You don't know the meaning. The time y'all know y'all be on the floor pleading. Think I'm nothing but a whipper snapper? Well, s***! You just a shoe tapper! Bro, I'm at your grave, so here, I'll give you a wave. Wanna see what it read? Fine, just don't come crying to me. "This is the way- Dragon5 lay- Forever resting here with no one to say." Something about calling me a b**** then wishing me a good week made me laugh. Anyway, no problem. Good luck next round, and thanks for accepting the challenge!
Rap Battle Challenge

I may be new to the web Debate, but I'll have my means to celebrate. You may be asking- why so smug? It's becuz' I bout to beat this fug. So the question's this- will you accept the battle or feel remiss? The choice is yours- just make it fast- cuz' I got chores. (4 rounds: Acceptance => Battle => Battle => Conclusion. 48 hr. replies. If you have any questions feel free to let me know, man. If you wish not to accept, I will understand. Either way, have a great week!)
Gay marriage

As I said, first I will: -Prove that social behaviors categorized under X are bad for society. Here I go. Gay habits are bad. I had a friend who was sexually attracted to men, good for him. But after they started dating, he decided to walk differently and crop his wrists and hands and arms in strange motions considered homosexual. He started to develop a lisp and act like his boyfriend, wearing flashy clothes and talking about shopping at the mall. This negatively impacts society because the behavior is not simply silly, but artificial. If men are obsessed with gay orgy parties (gay men have orgy parties, straight people rarely have orgy parties, please don't waste your time contesting this), shopping for cloths, acting "fabulous" and trying to emulate women, they are not only bothering other people by disturbing them with juvenile behavior, but are preventing themselves from accomplishing important things. Instead of acting strangely and caring so much about fashion, they can be using their brains for more important things. Their odd social behavior preventsthem from caring about anything except acting as "gay" as they socially can. Their gay behavior confuses women who think straight men are not as nice because straight men don't always smile and do silly wittle thingsssssss ;))))). Women believe these gay men like them more, and women want straight men to act "gay." This causes straight men to dress as gay men, and become preoccupied. Preoccupation with clothes is a waste of time. Have fun living in a society where everyone obsesses over their hair and how tight their jeans are Gay people are emulating women incorrectly. Their portrayal of women is extremely offensive. One may say they are emulating femininity, not womanhood. Unlike "gay" men, women can be strong. They are not weak helpless silly creatures like these social monstrosities. Because children emulate their parents, children will try to act soially gay under the guardianship of two men. Right out of the petri dish the next Einstein will become a drag queen, confused about gender roles right at birth. These "gays" are too socially ridiculous. Their social behavior would have them having gay sex publicly in the street all day every day. All they car about is happiness -- an artificial happiness of silliness and happy unicorns. In my next step, I will prove that almost all gay people act this way, and also reinforce the negatives I've gone over more thoroughly. Clarification: Gay marriage is bad cause it causes too many gays to act SOCIALLY gay. Some SOCIAL gays in society give society spice, but this spice can go out of hand. I will elaborate on gays that are NOT apart of this social construct -- gays that like gay sex but behave like men raher than a non-existant gender between women and men -- and how these gays are fine.
Gay marriage

Ladies and gentlemen, watch this video please: http://www.youtube.com... Gay people all gravitate to a certain point -- they are sucked towards this point as if it is a vortex. The point is conformity, and the conformity is that from which stereotypes develop. In other words, gays all act the same, or nearly the same, socially, and this social behavior negatively impacts society. I have no problem with men having sex or men getting married. I have a problem with gay man who behave as X get married, where X is the vortex. Marriage ensures the large majority of gays will behave according to X. In my argument I will: -Prove that social behaviors categorized under X are bad for society. -Prove that gay marriage forces more gay persons towards X
granting high ranking military officers the right to veto government decisions regarding secutiry

During times of emergency and unrest( the paradigm of this debate), it would be a rather lengthy and tedious process to consider the opinion of ministers, or those concerned with the task of getting themselves involved in arriving at such decisions, by which time, the ship of salvation or sliver chance of victory may have sailed. therefore it should be upto the high ranking military officers to make on the spot decisions about how to act,dispatch or retreat when faced with enemy threats.
granting high ranking military officers the right to veto government decisions regarding secutiry

My opponent has forfeited this entire debate. The only round in which any attempt at making an argument was made would be Round 1, so that is the round I will respond to. This is where I would break down my opponents arguments and provide rebuttals, but after reading it carefully - there is nothing to rebut. Everything aside from the last sentence is unintelligible. In which government are ministers the highest ranking officials? Are we discussing this debate in the context of solely that government, if such a government even exists?My opponent, as Pro, failed to present any logical case to affirm the position, and therefore fails to uphold the burden placed on the affirmative stance. This goes especially for the last sentence in which my opponent states that it should be up to the high ranking military officers to make on the spot decisions. First off, my opponent failed to present a reasonable scenario in which the military leaders would be the only one's left to make the decisions - especially in America where there is a chain of command [1] for such events. According to my opponent - it wouldn't even necessarily be in the event of death which is the case for America's system but rather just whenever their is emergency and unrest. This is absurd because it totally forfeits the power of the commander-in-chief, who himself is the highest ranking military officer, so this entire point falls on itself. [1] http://www.jber.af.mil...