BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana Should Be Legalized

The military and the spending on chewing gum are simply statistics to put the figure of $5 billion into perspective. My point was that it may seem like a hug amount, but given the amount of money spent by people and governments on other issues, we should be able to muster this kind of spending to combat drug use. Pro’s comparison of marijuana to tobacco and alcohol detracts from the issue at hand. Pro attempts to make a case for legalizing marijuana by ‘proving’ that it is less harmful than other substances. But just because it is healthier than something doesn’t ipso facto mean that it is absolutely healthy. The second point was a comment on the scope of the sample space on the study that stated marijuana to be less harmful than cigarettes. As I stated in my previous argument, marijuana impairs your ability to drive. Whether or not this impairment is as severe as that caused by alcohol is not the subject of debate. It is unsafe to drive after consuming cannabis. Saying that it is less dangerous is not a condition to legalize it. I would like to add that while I am not discrediting the study by NORML, it is after all a pro marijuana lobby. I urge you to provide statistics by neutral and unbiased sources who conduct studies only with scientific intent. Quoting your initial argument: “If it wasn't for marijuana, then much of the art, music, and books we read today would not have ever been made” “And due to the focus aspects of it, many of the geniuses of today's society and past might not be or have been in the place they are and were” Pro is definitely attributing a large part, if not all, of some people’s success to marijuana. While marijuana may not have cost some people their future, you cannot, from this statement, conclusively say that it will not adversely affect anyone else. Pro has merely re-iterated its old argument shedding the points that it could not contest. Keeping something illegal sends a strong moral message. In my opinion, keeping it illegal helps prevent a vast majority of youth from trying and becoming addicted to it simple because it is easy enough for them to ‘try’ it. Even when marijuana is sold for medicinal purposes, it is easy enough for people to obtain a license for almost any and all ailments. Some studies also suggest that marijuana may serve as a gateway drug to ‘hard’ drugs such as cocaine, in which case legalizing marijuana could lead to rampant drug use.
Marijuana Should Be Legalized

By reading your debate, I have found that you're arguments are irrelevant and false. Money 1. The military isn't a valid debating point because we need the army to protect us. You cannot compare weed to a military. The point is, keeping weed illegal is just adding to a deficient. Its necessary to spend that much money on the military in order to keep our nation safe. But spending $5 billion a year just to keep marijuana smokers from smoking is illogical and a waste of money. 2. The second point made also isn't valid. I am speaking of government spending, not a citizens personal money. I doubt its the government that spend $2 billion dollars a year on gum. No, 5 billion isn't much to some of the governments spending on other programs, but at a economic crisis such as this one, we need cuts wherever we can get. 1. There are carcinogens found in every type of smoke. The difference between cigarettes and marijuana is that you can vaporize or bake marijuana rather than smoke it like a cigarette. But if smoking weed has over 50% more carcinogens then why do tobacco smokers have 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer and cancer of the neck and head than regular marijuana smokers? 2. Your second point shows no relevancy to anything mentioned in my argument. 3. You are correct, it is not between whether its better than alcohol. Never did I mention that it was. According to a test done by NORML, smoking marijuana has mild effects on how the driver drives and " individuals under the influence of cannabis tend to be aware of their impairment and try to compensate for it accordingly, either by driving more cautiously or by expressing an unwillingness to drive altogether." 4. The point in showing the list was not to say that you can credit all of their success to smoking marijuana but rather prove that smoking marijuana did not cost them their future as perceived by today's society. And yes, you can credit some peoples work and success to their consumption of marijuana. Joan of the arc is a prime example as well as William Shakespeare. In all, my opponent has made no real points as to why weed should remain illegal. Instead, he or she has only tried and failed to prove my argument wrong. http://stopthedrugwar.org... http://www.foxnews.com... http://www.chacha.com...
God Probably Doesn't Exist

I have chosen "Dmot" for this debate. He looks like he would be a good and knowledgeable opponentGod:The Judeo-Christian-Muslim Sentient Tri Omni disembodied Mind (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, ect) who is the timeless Creator of the Universe.BOP (Burden of proof) is shared. I must show that God is improbable and my opponent must show God is probable.Debate format:R1: Opening information and Con's opening arguments R2: My rebuttal and Con's response R3: My response and Con's last response R4: My closing response.Since Con is arguing in round 1, in round 4 Con will put"For an equal number of rounds, nothing will be posted here, as agreed."Since these debates tend to get long, you must limit yourself to a maximum of 3 contentions. This should be enough space for rebuttals and source lists. If there is not enough space to list sources, you may post them in an external link or in the comments.Rules: No forfeits No insults No semantics 72 Hours to Post Argument 10,000 Characters Max 10 Day Voting PeriodStart your arguments in Round 13 contentions max
On the Questionably Sandwich Nature of the Hotdog

It seems that again you have made the fatal mistake of centering your argument around a term without fully understanding it. This time you are saying that the piece is indeed something that is individual, but that the word individual does not imply discrete quantity or something that is separate, but simply that it is distinct. So let us again look to the terms and the definition of individual: in"di"vid"u"al G6;indəG2;vij(oV2;o)əl/Submit adjective 1. single; separate. Here the argument presents itself. Individual is indeed discrete and is a separate quantity as that is the definition of the word. So your argument claiming that the word individual could be continuous is clearly disproved by the word whose definition claims the opposite. The next argument where you use the authority of common phrasing does not really hold here as we are making arguments based on definitions and what the words actually mean and specifically the definition you provided. According to the logical consequence of your definition, a sub is not a sandwich, and people are wrong to call it one, if they at the same time treat the dictionary as a legitimate source of defining a thing. My hope is that one day the American people fully understand the terms they use and what is meant by them so that they can distinguish the hot dog as a revolutionary, individual delicacy and give it the proper, distinct respect it deserves.
On the Questionably Sandwich Nature of the Hotdog

You make a good point, however, still miserably mislead. You were right to name a piece as "individual," that it must necessarily be. In order for something to be considered a piece, it must be a part, individual from the whole as well as a remainder. Simply, to be individual a piece must be not discrete, but distinct. Pieces of bread as quantity, can be either continuous or discrete quantity. That is to say, the parts may share boundaries, or may be separate. So then, the two halves of the hotdog, which are distinguished by the thin conjoining part are by all means individual pieces, despite being conjoined. The validity of this conclusion is reinforced by the utter absurdity that one is forced to accept by the conclusions denial: that a subway sandwich is no sandwich at all. The subway sandwich is perhaps the most iconic and most staple sandwich in American society (besides the hot-dog and hamburger of course), and to deny it's status as a sandwich is near sacrilege. My hope is that one day the American people will recognize the Hotdog with that same respect it deserves.
On the Questionably Sandwich Nature of the Hotdog

It seems that the meat of your argument(see what i did there) is that the piece talked about in the definition you provided does not necessitate a separation but rather it must just be a part of something, which in this case you claim to be the loaf. I find it interesting though that you have made an argument based on a word without actually defining the word. So let us look at the definition of piece: piece pēs/Submit noun 1. a portion of an object or of material, produced by cutting, tearing, or breaking the whole. verb 1. assemble something from individual parts. The implication from the noun seems to heavily imply a separation as the imagery of breaking, tearing, and cutting are all forms of separation. But this is not enough proof, as it could be argued that a part could be cut, torn, or broken off without necessarily separating. It is instead from the verb that we can get a more formed sense of the word. To piece something together or to assemble from pieces notably can only be done with "individual" parts. The use of the word individual shows that the parts with which you piece or, as the nominative, pieces are in fact discreet quantities, or separate. So with this new insight that the verb provides, the pieces which are talked about in the definition of a sandwich you provided are in fact separate breads. As for the argument of subs still being sandwiches, it seems that the logical consequence of the breads being separate must indeed be that subs are not sandwiches, but that they are mislabeled by their makers, according of course to the definition of a sandwich you provided.
On the Questionably Sandwich Nature of the Hotdog

An interesting argument from definition, though false. What is the distinction, I ask, between a roll and a loaf? It is the distinction between genus and species, I say. This is the fourth Google definiton of a roll: a very small loaf of bread, to be eaten by one person. Therefore, a single roll is a single loaf. Now then, I direct attention to the specific wording of the sandwich's given definition. It is said to consist of "two pieces of bread," the key word here being: piece. By saying that the contents of a sandwich are contained by two pieces of bread, one allows for the two pieces to be parts of the same loaf. Therefore in the same way that a sandwich can have it's contents contained by two parts of the same loaf of bread, a hotdog has it's contents contained by two parts of the same loaf: the roll. The logical objection to this, however, is that there is a distinction between the two instances of containment because in a sandwich such as a hamburger, the two parts of the bread are separated, whereas in the case of sandwiches such as the hotdog, the two parts of the bread are conjoined. I respond by saying that it makes no difference whether the two parts of the loaf are conjoined or separated, appealing the the verbal sense of the word "sandwich." The fact that in common use, the verb "to sandwich," means to lodge something stationarily, reflects that the real defining aspect of a sandwich is simply that the contents are contained by bread. As long as the housing for the content is bread, and the content is "sandwiched" within the bread, the thing is properly called a sandwich. I must draw attention also, to the fact, as noted by the brilliant Kreuger515 in the comments, that if one should take issue with the parts of the bread being conjoined around the hotdog, they must necessarily disbar the subway sandwich, a staple of sandwich culture, along with the hotdog. Which is of course absurd. Therefore in conclusion, because the hotdog itself is properly "sandwiched" within bread, it deserves to be called a sandwich.
On the Questionably Sandwich Nature of the Hotdog

This an interesting topic and I commend you for your creativity in coming up with it. First off let us see what exactly a hotdog is: hot dog G2;h"(d) G6;d"ɡ/Submit noun 1. a frankfurter, especially one served hot in a long, soft roll and topped with various condiments. Some important things to note in this definition: First, the frankfurter or the meat is served in "a" soft roll, notably singular. This directly contradicts the definition of a sandwich as a sandwich consists of "two pieces of bread". So according to the definition that you provided, since a hot dog has only one piece of bread, it is not a sandwich. Secondly, condiments are used differently in a sandwich than how they are used with a hot dog. In a sandwich the filling, condiments, or parts other than the meat are "between" the breads, while in a hot dog the condiments top the hot dog. This further shows the differences between a hot dog and a sandwich.
On the Questionably Sandwich Nature of the Hotdog

Very serious debate, paramount topic: Is a Hotdog properly called a sandwich or not? Con will arrive at the resolution that a Hotdog is not properly called a sandwich. The definition of a sandwich, according to the Google Dictionary: sand"wich G2;sanG6;(d)wiCH/Submit noun noun: sandwich; plural noun: sandwiches 1. an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal. "a ham sandwich" something that is constructed like or has the form of a sandwich. verb verb: sandwich; 3rd person present: sandwiches; past tense: sandwiched; past participle: sandwiched; gerund or present participle: sandwiching 1. insert or squeeze (someone or something) between two other people or things, typically in a restricted space or so as to be uncomfortable. "the girl was sandwiched between two burly men in the back of the car" Con will present the first argument.
The Islam religion is homophobic.

OutlineI. IntroII. Mass murder based upon sexual orientationIII. Homophobia in religious textsIV. SummaryV. SourcesI. IntroIslam is homophobic. " Fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men." [1]II. Mass murder based upon sexual orientation"Orlando Has Exposed Islam’s Huge Homophobia Problem"[2]"Thrown from a roof, stoned to death and crucified: While the world reacts with horror to terror in Europe, new ISIS executions show the medieval brutality jihadists would bring to the West" [3]III. Homophobia in religious textsQuran "Quran (7:80-84) - "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone)" -" [4]Hadith and Sira"Abu Dawud (4462) - The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.".Abu Dawud (4448) - "If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death." (Note the implicit approval of sodomizing one's wife)." [4]IV. Summary In conclusion, based upon the evidence provided, I find Islamic religion to be extremely homophobic. Clearly, an ideology that targets one group of minorities also targets others. V. Sources1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...2. https://newrepublic.com...3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...4. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com...
The Islam religion is homophobic.

I do not have random thoughts... it seems like you have random thoughts. Your random thought is that all of Islam is homophobic. That's not true. It could be true if you interviewed every Islam person. But I bet that you didn't do that. And you don't have enough proof all of Islam is homophobic. I'm pretty sure that you're not sure if your right or not. Your quotes in round 1 were actually pretty silly. It was also useless. Why? It were just some quotes from just some people.
The Islam religion is homophobic.

I would like to say a few things to my opponent. 1) It could have been smart by not giving advice that I was thinking Muslim and win the debate. (No offense and thanks for the advice anyway.) 2) How do you know all of Islam is homophobic? Have you interviewed every person that is Islam. I bet you that the answer is no. 3) Some of your arguments in round one were useless. 4) Why did you talk a little about Muslim on round 2? I accidentally talked about Muslim, not purposely. 5) You do not give advice to your opponent 6) There is nothing bad about not using sources.
The Islam religion is homophobic.

My opponent has used no sources. I also think my opponent is getting Muslim confused with the Islam religion. Muslim is to believer in religion x. As Islam as to religion x's faith. Yes, there are many Muslims who claim they aren't homophobic. Yet, overall the Islamic faith seem homophobic. Especially considering there is a substantial amount of homophobic material within the religious text. Perhaps more importantly peaceful Muslim still proliferate the Islam religion. Proliferating a religion with so much violence, homophobia, racism, religious intolerance, warmongering, and misogyny within its culture and religious texts is never good.
The Islam religion is homophobic.

No, I do not agree with your argument. There are two parts of Islam. One is very extreme group (the one your'e talking about) like IS. But the other group is not extreme. The non-extreme group of Islam is not necessarily homophobic, just as not all the Christians or Jewish are homophobic. They don't murder and plant bombs. They don't hate, their rather concerned. It is true that extreme Islamic group is homophobic. But that doesn't mean Islam overall is homophobic. In the next round, I hope you don't argue with quotes copied from the internet. (You only copied quotes that are bad about Islam. You didn't copy any quotes that are good.) My point is that not all Islam are homophobic.
Colleges should pay their student athletes if the college profits from the palyers

When I said they were kids, I meant in spirit. They are legally adults, but are still young and naive. I have seen many times where kids spend money on things they don't need. But yes they can use their money on anything, because its their money. But I believe its a bad idea to pay theses kids because some sports earn much more money then others. On average American Football earns 29.6 million while the second most earning sport, men's basketball makes 7.8 million for NCAA 1 athletics. Via http://www.businessinsider.com.... This would mean many athletes would make more money then others. Not to mention the wealth made on College sports is not evenly distributed. Only 24 colleges make 100+ million on sports. 77% of Colleges make less then 50 million, and 44% make less then 20 million in revenue. Via http://www.businessinsider.com.... This would mean athletes at smaller schools would make less money, and the schools couldn't update their sports facilities. This mixed with the fact that athletes would make more money at bigger schools would mean that big schools would get all the athletes, and smaller schools would loose athletes and sports.
Colleges should pay their student athletes if the college profits from the palyers

When you say that college athletes are kids, could you elaborate? By legal standards, once you are over 18 years old you are no longer legally a kid anymore unless you are using a colloquial version of kid. I don't mean to be stringent, I simply want to be absolutely clear on what you mean. Also, when you say that some might save their money but most wouldn't, why do you make this claim? I personally know many college students who use their money on basic necessities such as food, rent, the internet, and transportation. However, even if what you say is correct, I don't think it applies to my initial point. What the athlete decides to spend their earned money on doesn't matter, they earned it. Based on your statement that kids aren't smart with their money, should jobs be allowed to not pay student employees? I ask this because it is the same principle, only instead of a traditional job the student is participating in a sport aka physical labor. I do agree with your final point on teaching athletes, or any student for that matter, how to spend and save their money more responsibly. Not only is this a skill that can be carried on for entire generations, but it would help local economies in the long run but I digress.
Colleges should pay their student athletes if the college profits from the palyers

I believe that student athletes shouldn't be paid. At the end of the day they are kids. Some of them might save their money and make smart decisions, but most wouldn't. They would just go and spend their money on new cars, houses, and t.v's. I think if athletes were to be payed, they should be informed on how to spend their money, or shown how easily athletes go broke.
Colleges should pay their student athletes if the college profits from the palyers

Student athletes need to be paid fairly if the college profits from their efforts. By fairly, I mean the student athlete deserves a proportional payout based on the overall percentage they helped generate from ticket sales, merchandise, television revenue, and any other form of capital the school made. Working without any form of compensation is unfair and even though some schools might pay the student via scholarships and food vouchers, it is never proportionally fair.