BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medical Marijuana

However these are key flaws in his argument. Rebuttal 1: The potentiality of marijuana as a harmful drug is valid but under discretion of the user. Those who decide to use it unwisely choose to do so. It can be compared to other [bad] decisions such as smelling whiteout. Des this mean that whiteout should be made illegal? By no means! Con's argument is focused on the harmful affects of marijuana, but disregards the fact that it is up to the user to decide the usage. Support: The point that other rights (such as having paint) might be violated further supports my 1st reason that rights are at stake when making medical marijuana illegal. Sources: . http://tiny.cc...
Medical Marijuana

Medical Marijuana is Marijuana and would therefore be considered as a potential drug which can not only cause addiction but also create unwanted side effects. As my opponent previously stated, Medical Marijuana can be used as a treatment for cancer and neurological disorders. However, the way in which Marijuana actually treats these symptoms should be considered. Marijuana, according to most websites, stimulate and then muffle the nervous system in such a way that the human body is no longer concerned with the disorder but rather feel the need for more Marijuana. This its self is addiction. Therefore, we can conclude that although Marijuana can treat symptoms, it does so in a dangerous way which creates more side-effects than results.
Medical Marijuana

There are 2 strong arguments that throughly justify the legalization of medical marijuana: Support 1: Restricting the use of medical marijuana violates the needs of individuals. People who need this as medicine are barred from their treatment. Support 2: Medical marijuana has extensively proven in a myriad of cases to be a treatment including for cancer and neuro-disorders. (See www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/). Giving legal access would be the same as allowing a cancer patient to be given treatment. Why would one deny treatment to another? Sources: www.medicalmarijuana.net/uses-and-treatments/cancer-and-chemotherapy/ norml.org/component/zoo/.../recent-research-on-medical-marijuana
Public schools schould teach Creationism.

Because I am PRO, I will post my argument first. I agree with my opponent's definitions. In addition, I offer the following definitions. Should - Used to express obligation or duty. I would like to offer a pre-case observation : Public School SHOULD teach creationism indicates that Public Schools hold a obligation to teach creationism. This does not mean that they have to teach it De Facto, merely that it should be taught. On to my case ; -Contention 1- Creationism is relevant in the teaching of history Creationism has been taught throughout the ages. The first recorded case of an argument was shown between 106BCE and 43 BCE, where Cicero made a Watchmaker style argument. (De natura deorum, ii. 34) From this point on, creationism was both debated, and many a time in history, a respected aspect of human society. There is a LOT of technological and societal advances during these eras, for example, the invention of glass mirror, which was used in telescopes, which was invented 11th century in Spain. (^ Dr. Kasem Ajram (1992). The Miracle of Islam Science (2nd ed. ). Knowledge House Publishers. ISBN 0-911119-43-4. ) These eras had a strong focus on education and religion simultaneously. In order to understand a lot of social behaviors, we have to look at their driving factors. For example, the values of the Puritans who migrated to America during the 16th-17th century. Their values basically were to do the Will of God. Because this factor drove them, they worked hard to ensure this was met, resulting in a successful culture. This culture can be considered successful because they survived to make a strong society. This is important to know, that we must teach what creationism is, in order to understand WHY this made individuals so dedicated. -Contention 2- Teaching Creationism helps explain modern science protocol This is a basic idea. People took a claim, which was accepted by many, and considered it true, without strong evidence. They used false positive evidence to 'prove' the existence of God. (Intelligence, Free Will, Self consciousness, etc) This was a bad scientific teaching, because it led to inaccurate or flat out incorrect results. This is important to acknowledge WHY our system of science today is so meticulous to ensure there are no biases ; only facts. We build off of our mistakes, and in order to teach people why, we need to explain blunders in the past that led to our more modern systems. Creationism is important to understand. It does NOT need to be taught as TRUE, as the resolved does NOT state this. It merely says it should be taught. As I've shown, teaching, which is defined as imparting with knowledge, helps teach students how these fields of study have developed, as well as how to understand past societies. I look forward to my opponent's arguments, and I'd like to thank him for creating this exciting debate. In addition, I encourage all judges of this debate to remove any bias from either side of this resolved, and look strictly at the arguments ; this is a hot button issue, and as such, we must look at it for what the arguments are.
Public schools schould teach Creationism.

This is my first debate in debate.org so even though I would not expect leniency towards the validity of the arguments I bring forth, please be easy on me as I am not aware of Debate.org debate protocol, manners, or structure. That being said I stand in firm negation of the resolution "Creationism should be taught in public schools." My definitions are as follows 1) Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2) Teach: to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in Both definitions were from dictionary.com. I will give my contentions when my opponent accepts the debate =] Good luck.
Slow zombies are scarier than fast zombies.

I accidentally fell asleep after school and didn't wake up until it was time to go to school the next day. ~~~~~~~~~ Clarifications ~~~~~~~~~ /// SLOW ZOMBIES are usually: -Nearly indestructible -Possesses in-human strengths FAST ZOMBIES ARE usually: -Faster than you /// I did some research and found what I believe is a fairly good description of different zombie canons [1]. None of them are described as having these attributes with the exception of Marvel Zombies, which really isn't a topic that should be addressed in this debate. It would be best if my opponent were to cite where he got this information. My source also only states that fast zombies have human-like speed, which means that they could outrun some, but some could outrun them. To keep the debate fair I will post my rebuttals to your arguments in the last round to give us each 1 rebuttal. ~ ~~~~~~~ Argument ~~~~~~~ Fast Zombies are scarier than slow Zombies for one reason. Slow Zombies almost universally have sub-human intelligence, whereas many types of fast zombies have intelligence that is classified as human-like. With slow zombies the only thing you have to fear is if they catch you by surprise. If you are competent this is likely to be a rare occurrence because it is easy to set up your basic perimeter alarm using string and aluminum cans which when tripped alerts you to movement. You should have a weapon at hand to easily dispatch these slow moving foes. Slow zombies are even less scary when you do the smart thing and keep to open areas. Fast zombies would be able to catch you/beat this system using their human-like intelligence. It is for this reason that fast zombies are scarier than slow zombies [1] . http://sites.dehumanizer.com...
Slow zombies are scarier than fast zombies.

I look forward to the debate that has raged since mankind's forerunners were crawling out of the oceans. To begin, we must define what a slow zombie is and a fast zombie is. SLOW ZOMBIES are usually: -Slow -Dumb -Nearly indestructible -Possesses in-human strengths -Possesses super-senses -Requires headshots to kill FAST ZOMBIES ARE usually: -Faster than you -Agile -More dexterous -Easier to kill However, there have been exceptions for both sides. For example, slow zombies in some games/movies can be killed by any body shot. Fast zombies, which are usually just diseased people, as opposed to undead, are easier to kill because they can die in any way a human can. However, the fast zombies from Dawn of the Dead are both undead AND fast. My argument for slow zombies being more scarier is that they possess a sense of creeping death, as opposed to the in-your-face moments you always experience with fast zombies. With fast zombies, you only have seconds to realize just how screwed you are and the you die. With slow zombies you can have days, months to think up of all the gory ways you can die. It's the difference between skydiving and scuba diving; the difference between someone popping up in your face and screaming and hearing ominous sounds all around you, slowly closing in. Sprinters are also much easier to kill than shamblers are, if we are going by the assumption that they are merely infected people than actual undead (and, with few exceptions, they usually are just diseased people). You don't need headshots to kill them. A few shots anywhere will kill them: starvation, hunger, disease (unless the zombie virus somehow kills other diseases), all of those will be factors for sprinters. For shamblers, they do not require food, or water, or oxygen (if we are, again, going by the traditional, mainstream shamblers such as in the Zombie Survival Guide or Resident Evil). Cheap thrills can be enjoyed when they can, but I argue that it is much more effective when the fear builds up over time, and the tension eventually explodes somewhere down the road, a sense of anxiety and dread as opposed to shaky camera angles and a bunch of explosions. Given the modern attention span to movies these days, it's quite a shame to see the "creeping death" concept given away to constant, non-stop, fast-paced action that leaves little in the way of story or building up any sense of fear. Fast zombies definitely have their place: you always need to spice up a genre or else it will get stale. If all people used in movies and games were shamblers it would eventually get boring. Also, with shambler movies, there is a lot more character development between the cast. In sprinter movies it's pretty rare to see anything of the Zombieland was quite good at this: balancing development of the characters with fighting the flesh-eating cannibals all around them. But it lacked any horror, any building fear about it. One can argue that it was a comedy, and it indeed was: but the directors wished to mix comedy with horror, and I saw almost none of the ladder.
Women/Girls moan on purpose during sex

Yes I know that a 'scream' is not the same thing as 'moan' , but my point was that when someone feels something he will react to it in various ways. Example, if the person is in great pain she will scream, if she is sad she will cry, and for this debate, when a woman will experience great sexual pleasure or orgasm she will moan. I am not saying all of them do, but it is not necessarily on purpose to make the guy happy. They do it out of pleasure.
The USA should take extensive measures to annex Canada

It's a fact that Canada is apart of the British Commonwealth. They along with South Africa and Australia are the puppets of Britain. All though they have their own Prime Minister, he still answers to the Queen. Its practically a satellite nation. If we stopped Russia from having Poland as its satellite nation we should also stop England from having Canada and the whole common wealth break away from being a satellite nation. Even if they become their own country after we help them by annexation.
Women are more VIOLENT than Men

This is my first debate, and I am probably going to embarrass myself. Although, women are more on the softer part of things, they can prove to be a little bit more violent than we could expect. But that doesn't mean men aren't the same. Men(not to be sexist) are usually more "stronger". There are many crimes, mostly caused by men as well. But yes, women also tend to do some.. unexpected things, bruised husbands and such. Probably about 70% of crimes are caused by men. The other 30% are caused by women. Men often overdo themselves and become more violent. Gender equality still isn't a thing yet! Some say men are smarter than women, some say women are smarter then men, some say Trump is a bad president, some say otherwise. These debates make more and more conflicts with people, make more violence. Verbal or physical, it doesn't matter to them. In fact, the degree to which women are the victims of male violence is truly staggering. Women aged 15 to 44 worldwide are more likely to be killed or maimed because of male violence than because of war, cancer, malaria, and traffic accidents combined. Men do crimes I'm ashamed to talk about, have you seen the news? But before I get too ahead of myself, as a 12 year old I'd like to see what you are going to talk about. And before you beat me, I'll tell you this, men and women are the same, yes, although the amount of crimes caused by either one of these genders, they are still the same, everyone has done a crime, even a little one. I don't see a future where this will be resolved. And one more thing, I kinda got off topic and kind of used up all I was going to say in the four rounds.., so yeah.. penalize me.
I think I have a gamma ray pointed at my house.

as I cannot guarantee that I do have a giant gamma ray directed at me, I have a valid reason to think it. I may not believe it, but this is not a mere assertion or something I ponder about. This is rational fear. Something I can't disbelieve. Despite the fact I lack faith in it. (:; That's an examine I have been vying for, for a while. .. LOL If there is a gamma ray. I am sure I slept under it at least once. thank you.
I think I have a gamma ray pointed at my house.

did you read what I said? How can you assert no one cares enough? I am not starting conflicts which distract people, disillusion issues, cater to the corrupt, and I am not pointing fingers at any individuals , SO the conflicts I start are directly pointed towards the corrupt and the social inequality of sex trade. They care about what I do. They do. No lazy boyfriend, unfaithful man, doush, pervert, rich person or idiot should get to have sex with one or more women to create an illusion of equality which leads to complete THIS... the problem is there, that they don't care about the future, they care about the opinions of people now in their personal groups, who can get their diccks wet through social interactions and parties. Parties I'd see end.
I think I have a gamma ray pointed at my house.

No one cares enough to point a gamma ray at you. I am a newcomer to politics, but not to backing the Jewish state. (APPLAUSE) In 2001, weeks after the attacks on New York City and on Washington and, frankly, the attacks on all of us, attacks that perpetrated and they were perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalists, Mayor Rudy Giuliani visited Israel to show solidarity with terror victims. I sent my plane because I backed the mission for Israel 100 percent. (CHEERS, APPLAUSE) In spring of 2004 at the height of the violence in the Gaza Strip, I was the grand marshal of the 40th Salute to Israel Parade, the largest-single gathering in support of the Jewish state. (APPLAUSE) It was a very dangerous time for Israel and frankly for anyone supporting Israel. Many people turned down this honor. I did not. I took the risk and I"m glad I did. (APPLAUSE) But I didn"t come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That"s what politicians do: all talk, no action. Believe me. (APPLAUSE) http://time.com...
I think I have a gamma ray pointed at my house.

It is darn disgusting that people think just because they so a few theoretical math equations that they can determine on their own, how to provide alternatives for energy for an entire country: Th, to replace uranium for example. A fine case of Cherynobel. The energy comes from somewhere. Not the Th Atom, the atom is a port. The syphoning of environmnetal energy, is the radiation. The continued flow of energy in irregular patterns to feed the energy "source". To think of what the Power Fanatics with ray-guns in their back yards are trying to untapin. We are already deecomposing water into Hydrogen and Oxygen for fuel. which means that the impurities of the water, Helium, Carbon, Phosphorous etc are combining with the fuel content (H+O) to form chemicals. Water does not convert back into water, as the many contaminants form these interactions even when the fuel is not being burned. imagine the fear of not wanting to wake up your neighbours because it was socially unacceptable while a radiation zone was killing the neighbourhood because of a private experiment. like being gamma rayed intentionally right through the roof of your house from space.. because of the insolence of some person. drawing energy from uranium is like a bee making honey, compared to increasing the Amperage, from more than a mere "2%" to something of a "Spit-in-the-face-of-humanity" when in reality, the energy port would just erode and destroy itself. The maximum output of energy, is not a lasting energy output. these are issues our government needs to make sure they are completely ahead of.
Belief in the Bible is not rational

First things first, Satan is the ruler of the world as it says in the bible, he can do what he wants with the world and all of the lesser creatures of it as long as god doesn't stop him. Thats why when he takes Jesus to the highest mountain in Israel he says that he can give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world. Because Satan rules the world the kingdoms of the world are his. It would be easy for the being of supreme evil to give a snake vocal cords or even to speak without a mouth. God doesn't speak through animals because it isn't an effective means to talk to the people of the world anymore. he uses the holy spirit to whisper in your ear and disguises it as your voice, he is the voice of reason that enters your head when you need help or need to understand something while Satan is the voice of doubt and the voice that tells you "oh just one more". If an animal started talking to you and you told someone it was talking they'd think you're crazy. And also are we arguing whether the Bible is old or rational, the epic of gilgamesh while a great story has nothing to do with this argument.
Belief in the Bible is not rational

I'd like to do a debate on God's existence as well sometime in the future. 1. Satan may have been a physical representation of a snake, but snakes still don't have vocal chords. Unless satan shape-shifted to look like a snake but was actually just a spirit? 2. The spirit of God allowed the donkey to talk? Why doesn't God allow tortured animals to speak anymore then? One more point to bring up: The epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest story recovered from ancient babylon pre-dates the flood story of the Bible but is almost identical to the story of Adam and Eve and Noah's ark: "Various themes, plot elements, and characters in the Epic of Gilgamesh have counterparts in the book of Genesis, notably the accounts of the Garden of Eden and Noah's Flood. The parallels between the stories of Enkidu/Shamhat and Adam/Eve have been long recognized by scholars.[18] In both, a man is created from the soil by a god, and lives in a natural setting amongst the animals. He is introduced to a woman who tempts him. In both stories the man accepts food from the woman, covers his nakedness, and must leave his former realm, unable to return. The presence of a snake that steals a plant of immortality from the hero later in the epic is another point of similarity. Andrew R. George submits that the flood myth in Genesis 6"8 matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[19] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives." (http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) So which is older? "There is no conclusive proof that one came before the other, however both physical and literary evidence evidence suggests that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Biblical account of Noah and the flood by hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. The earliest physical account of the Epic of Gilgamesh was found written on a series of Akkadian tabletsA279; that are dated earlier than 2000BCE. Conversely the earliest physical account of Genesis (the Dead Sea Scolls) has been dated as between 150BCE and 70ACE Additionally certain features of the two myths suggest that the Biblical account borrowed from the Mesopotamian flood story. For example, the concept of a single omnipotent god is a relatively recent one. It was commonplace in ancient culture to believe in multiple deitys that have relatively human-like qualities. Indeed the Epic of Gilgamesh discusses many gods that bicker with and deceive one another. The most common means of learning about mythology in ancient times is through aural tradition. It is likely that the passing on of the flood myth from generation to generation lead to various changes (e.g. changing the name of the hero from UtnapishtiA279; to the more culturally appropriate Noah). When the author of the Biblical flood account wrote the story of Noah, they were simply writing the most culturally salient and up-to-date version of the story. "http://wiki.answers.com...'s_ark_or_epic_of_Gilgamesh_and_why
Belief in the Bible is not rational

Thank you for the challenge and I hope to debate more with you in the future. in his argument my opponent gave me the definition of rational witch I hope he sticks with. My rebutal to your points is this. 1: The snake in the garden of eden was not a snake but a physical representation of Satan, the fallen archangel. Thus he is able to speak. 2: The donkey was given the ability to speak by the spirit of God. Now before you say that defies logic, reason and the like remember that God is an all powerful being and Satan is a demon, they are both able to do things that defy human logic. This debate shouldn't devolve into a debate about God's existence but if you'd like I shall debate that with you at a later date.
Belief in the Bible is not rational

Thanks con. What does it mean to be rational? Rational: "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." -Google I don't need very many stories from the bible to prove that it isn't rational since everything contained in the Bible is the infallible word of God and must be taken as 100% truth. The only exception to this are the presence of metaphor's throughout the bible. I'll use two examples of stories in the bible that defy reason or logic. 1) the snake in the garden of Eden spoke to Eve. Snakes have never spoken because they don't have vocal cords and any animal doesn't have the conscious ability to speak our language. 2) the story about the donkey that spoke to his master after being beaten defies reason and logic because donkey's don't speak or know our language either. Given that the bible is infallible, and these stories aren't metaphors, then belief in the bible defies rationality.