BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalization of Marijuana

Legalizing Marijuana will cause the United States to have its own war on Drug crisis in our own backyeard.We already have a war on drugs crisis. The U.S. has already spent over 33.9 billion dollars this year fighting the war on drugs.[1] Its bad enough we have a war on Drugs with Mexico. Does this Country really want another war on drugs, except this time in its own backyard? I know for a fact that I don't.I'm not exactly sure what con means but I will guess that he is speaking of the drug cartel violence on the border. That violence is a result of marijuana being illegal. Rather than being able to call the police to report theft of their property, drug cartels must deal with this issue on their own often through violence. Also, drug cartels would be eliminated as alcohol cartels were eliminated when it was legalized. There becomes no need for the cartels because people can just buy from the store. More than any other group or person, cartels want marijuana to stay illegal.Legalizing Marijuana would lead to more drug related crimes and arrest. Its bad enough that some states like California, are having to release most of its inmates because of how crowded it has become, if we allow marijuana to be legal, all prison populations will grow because people will begin to abuse Marijuana.This argument is absurd. The prison population is overcrowded precisely because marijuana is illegal. Legalizing marijuana would dramatically lessen the prison population.Now a days millions of teens and adults are abusing all sorts of drugs. Can you imaging what would happen if we legalized Marijuana?People would continue to use marijuana. The drug war has done nothing to stop drug use and billions of dollars are lost every year. [1]http://www.drugsense.org...
Legalization of Marijuana

Legalizing Marijuana will cause the United States to have its own war on Drug crisis in our own backyeard. Its bad enough we have a war on Drugs with Mexico. Does this Country really want another war on drugs, except this time in its own backyard? I know for a fact that I don't. Unless the CDC and the FDA publishes proof that Marijuana can cure Medical issues, this country will remain split on the issue of legalizing it. Legalizing Marijuana would lead to more drug related crimes and arrest. Its bad enough that some states like California, are having to release most of its inmates because of how crowded it has become, if we allow marijuana to be legal, all prison populations will grow because people will begin to abuse Marijuana. Now a days millions of teens and adults are abusing all sorts of drugs. Can you imaging what would happen if we legalized Marijuana? Think about the questions before responding
Legalization of Marijuana

First of all con did not follow the debate rules by posting his argument in round 1. Secondly, and more importantly, con plagiarized his argument. http://casac.org...Although con should be disqualified I will continue with this debate.1 Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs.Con gives no evidence to support this claim and is actually in contradiction with most evidence on this matter. An article on scienceblog.com reads, "Marijuana is not a “gateway” drug that predicts or eventually leads to substance abuse, suggests a 12-year University of Pittsburgh study."[1]2 Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased.Con gives no evidence to support this claim.3 Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong.Some consider sex before marriage as morally wrong also. Should it be illegal?4 Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids.Con gives no evidence to support this claim and is actually in contradiction with most evidence on this matter. Legalization allows the marijuana to be regulated in the same way alcohol is. It is easier for teens to get marijuana than alcohol because it is unregulated and sold on the black market to anyone willing to buy.[2] 5 Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets.Using this flawed logic we should arrest every person who wears black. We could prevent so many future crimes. 6Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug. Con gives no evidence to support this claim but even if we assume marijuana is harmful, the user has every right to harm his own body. Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, [3] is quoted as saying, “If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all.”[4]7 More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders.Con gives no evidence to support his claim that use would be more widespread. 8 Legalization of marijuana could eventually lead to the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs altogether.Con gives no evidence to support this claim. Marijuana should be legalized for many reasons but the fundamental right of every person to do whatever they want with their own body as long as no one else's rights are violated is the most important reason. [1]http://scienceblog.com...[2]http://blog.norml.org...[3]http://www.fff.org...[4]http://thinkexist.com...
Legalization of Marijuana

I oppose the legalization of Marijuana, because of the high drug arrest in this country. I also oppose for te following reason: 1 Marijuana is often used as a stepping-stone drug, leading to heroin, cocaine, or other harder drugs. 2 Stoned driving and other dangers would be increased. 3 Some consider use of the drug as morally wrong. 4 Legalization would increase the chances of the drug falling into the hands of kids. 5 Because of drug-related arrests, people who have committed or are likely to commit more serious crimes can be taken off the streets. 6Physical damage would be done to users that abuse the drug. 7 More widespread use would increase the dangers of secondhand smoke-damage to bystanders. 8 Legalization of marijuana could eventually lead to the legalization of harder drugs or all drugs altogether.
The rock is a good actor

Okay, you see it's kind of hard to tell whether or not you're f***ing with me, because no WWE star is a good actor. NONE. Do you even know what acting is? It's not just being in a movie, it's playing a part. Let me list of some actors who I'd consider to be good.Matt DamonRay LiottaDaniel CraigCollin FarrelRyan GoslingBradley CooperHugh JackmanAdding The Rock to that list might as well be saying "I have no taste whatsoever!" Being a Rock fan is fine, I like his action roles even. But saying he's a good actor gives me the right to punch your face in the face. (Yeah, that's what's up.) I'm going to guess that an action junkie like you only knows about a few movies those actors have done. Let me give you an even harder challenge: Go watch some of these movies on netflix or something. Then you'll get an idea of what acting is.MagnoliaBeing John MalkovichUnbreakableMementoRaging BullLost in TranslationDriveSure, all of those films will be boring by your standards, but that's because your standards involve explosions, cliches, and being touch being synonymous with characters, storyline and acting ability. This is why I think film is a dying art, because of little sh*ts like you who keep turning it into your way to see crappy action films.
The rock is a good actor

"the rock makes money than we have ever seen"Okay, youre missing an entire word there, but also this is because he's an action star. He's done 6 movies this year alone, all of them action films. "He takes roid and makes mullah"I have no idea what mullah means, and steroids do not in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM improve acting ability, try to remember what it is we're debating here."He stars in so many movies that it is almost no debatable."No, it's completely debatable. Starring in a lot of films isn't the same as having good acting ability. I mean that's like saying my printer is a good printer because I have lots of paper. (Side note, my printer rocks)"Why would Hollywood keep hiring him to play roles if he was not good."They hire him because he makes money. Here's how the process behind an action film works.Say a studio wants to make an action film. Now they won't go to any good actors like Leonardo DiCaprio for this, no sir. They go for someone who doesn't need to read the script in detail, who doesn't need an acting coach because he's not going to be doing any of that, and someone who's famous so that dumb action junkies will line up at the theater pissing themselves with joy that yet another action film has come out. So to answer your question, studios (not hollywood because hollywood is a place it doesn't hire actors) hire The Rock a lot because everybody knows who he is, and every casual movie goer who thinks a wrestler with some guns is on the same acting level as someone who, oh I don't know, ACTS. (you.)Oh and to the voters who are might not vote my side becasuse I didn't site any sources: I don't need to site sources, this is an opinion based debate.
The rock is a good actor

The Rock is an action hero, plain and simple. And that's not in itself an argument, just look at Bruce Willis. Good actor, but mainly does action roles. But The Rock is not a good actor, he never takes on different roles, only action roles. I'm not saying he's a bad action star, in fact he's pretty decent as an action star. But there's an important part of being an actor that a lot of action stars almost never do - act. Most of the time he just plays a tough guy who's tough. And for your own good, don't use his family movies as examples of his "acting", you'll just help prove my point.
The Argument for/Pro presented in the debate "Atheism is reasonably impossible" is flawed

I would like to take up the debate started by errya in "Atheism is reasonably impossible" since his opponent has not replied. The reader should note that the Pro position here is the Con position in other debate. The argument presented for/Pro "Atheism is reasonably impossible" is flawed. It is flawed primarily for two reasons. It relies on: 1. a false dilemma (Materialism or Folk Dualism) 2. a mistaken notion of "Natural Law" (dictated versus descriptive) The first round is to present a summary of my argument for errya to accept.
The Argument for/Pro presented in the debate "Atheism is reasonably impossible" is flawed

For clarification, the reason why I go on about the different ontological positions an atheist can take is that you claim that atheism requires materialism. That is false. Not all atheist are materialists, nor does being an atheist commit them to materialism for the reasons I provided. Next, I do understand your argument. It is an old argument called the lawgiver argument. You can Google it. You are arguing that atheism is reasonably impossible. Let's examine what that means and what each of us needs to establish. When you say a position is reasonably impossible you are saying that the position is internally inconsistent or disagrees with empirical results. Your "proof" may be persuasive to you because you believe your premises. I do not and neither do atheists in general. From the point of view of an atheist, an argument can be made that god is unnecessary to explain natural laws. The argument might go something like this: 1. Every fundamental particle (I prefer to say constituent) in the universe determines its own behavior. 2. Many of these constituents appear to behave similarly so human beings can classify them. 3. These apparent similarities allow us to glean and relate properties such as mass, charge, etc... and call the relationships between properties natural laws. 4. All of this can be done without invoking gods. Therefore, gods are unnecessary to explain natural laws. There is nothing in this argument that is internally inconsistent or that disagrees with empirical results. What is does disagree with is your intuitions. You believe that nature is to some degree handicapped and in need of help so you say something like "Particles can't determine their own behavior because they are mere physical matter. That kind of thing requires intelligence." This is something that may seem obvious to you, but it is not obvious to an atheist. You need to demonstrate why intelligence is required to determine a particles behavior. Without a convincing argument, it is a claim at best and one that makes no sense to an atheist. There is another problem with your argument. It appears to be completely at odds with empirical results. You claim that matter behaves the same all the time. This is not true. Deterministic Newtonian physics was displaced by Quantum Mechanics more than 80 years ago. Electrons passing through a double slit from a single source do not end up in the same place. At best we can come up with a probability distribution that can account for the pattern. This is not a traditional deterministic natural law. Many Physicists, especially cosmologists, believe that a multiverse is the best explanation for the sum of observed phenomena. If that is the case, there really are no natural laws. Each time line would be determined, but there would be no absolute patterns of behavior. Natural laws for large scale objects in QM and multiverses are statistical expected paths, but they can unexpectedly deviate from them though it would be a very rare occurrence in most time lines.
God cannot exist if you do

Nothing in your first paragraph makes any sense so I'm skipping over most of it. It's as if you're saying that precipitating factors cannot influence people. Biological twins are not born in the same environments by definition. Unless they exist in the same points in space at all times, their environments are always different. In fact, they probably evolve in different ways specifically because they have a twin sibling. Quantum physics? What does that have to do with any of this? And your second paragraph is more proving my point than it is yours. I'm talking about precipitating factors, not the decisions themselves. And I'm not saying anything about knowing your precipitating factors affects your decisions. In fact I specifically spoke to that effect in my previous argument when I said that you can never know all of the factors effecting your decisions, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And saying God exists outside of time, but apparently knows NOTHING concerning the future seems paradoxical to me. Did God know Jesus would die? Did God know Jesus would be born? Did God send the wise men? Did God know about Moses? Did God know Eve would commit the first sin? Tell me again how God doesn't know ANYTHING about our decisions. I'd love to know more about how ignorant God truly is.
God cannot exist if you do

No, situations don't determine the outcome, Corneilius vanderbuilts son started out with a rairoad monopoly that he inhereited from his father and ended uper-middle class, whereas Andrew Carnegie started dirt poor and became filfy rich. Biological twins, even though they have the same genetics and are born in the same environment make different choices, go research Quantum physics. And It's just like I said, knowing your decisions doesn't mean you chose them. And G-d doesn't know them beforehand, that's by definition imposible since G-d exists outside of time.
God cannot exist if you do

And yet, the question remains. Does God know? You can quote all the scripture you like but the fundamental questions remain. Did God not know these things from the beginning? If I choose to be good or choose to be evil... is this somehow a surprise to God? Is God looking at me saying "Wow, I did not know you were going to do that!"? Does God know how our minds work? You talk about us having a choice about different ways we can respond to a situation... is that really true? Think about it. Of course there are options to any given situation but why do you pick the ones you pick. Of course you don't know all of them and you never will. Understanding all the causes and effects in your life would ultimately take a lifetime. i.e. Being a part of a system means that you can never fully understand the system. But you can see how certain elements affect us and our decision making process. I eat because I'm hungry. Why am I hungry? Because I haven't eaten in a while. Why haven't I eaten in a while? Probably because I got caught up in a project and lost track of time. Why did I get caught up in a project? Because it's important to me. Why is it important? Because I can sell what I'm building and make money? Why do I want to make money? Because I want to buy the PSVR when it comes out. Why? Because I went to a show last Summer and was able to try one and thought it was awesome. How did I get to the show? Because my friend had an extra ticket and gave it to me. Why are we friends? Because we went to school together. Why did we go to school together? Because our respective parents had sex at about the same time and we were conceived within a year of each other. See what I mean? The next time you have a "choice" and decide on one thing or another, ask yourself if your choice is really yours. Meaning that absolutely nothing has influenced your thoughts, opinions, tastes, preferences, etc. For better or for worse we are the product of our environments. The question is whether you believe that environment had a creator. This isn't about good or evil; sin or repentance. It's about whether you think God had the power to create a world with the parameters he chose (tuning the dials, as they say) to obtain the result he wanted. Does God have a plan? Are you a part of that plan? Do you think you have the power to deviate from that plan?
God cannot exist if you do

Bs"dG-d isn't an object or thing in the Universe, that means he has to take up space, and if he takes up space, that implies there are limits. He created the Universe, as well as the fabric of the Universe, as well as time, and every law pertaining to all of these. And though G-d may have the power to force people to make certaindecisions or to create the universe the way he wants as to result in these ecisions, being able to do something doesn't have the same implicdations as actualy doig it. It's like arresting someone for being able to commit a murder- its absurd. And though every action is a response to another, you get to chose the response. If somethig happens, you have a number of ways you can respond, no one response is guarenteed, just that there will be one. I do not believe in the book of Revelation since it's part of the Non-Testament, though a few of its predictions are coming true, but regardless, trhese predictions are entirely situational, if people begin making different decisions, the outcome will be different. Here is scriptural evidence, Jeremiah 18:7-10:"At one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; but if that nation turn from their evil, because of which I have spoken against it, I repent of the evil that I thought to do unto it. And at one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; but if it do evil in My sight, that it hearken not to My voice, then I repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit it."
God cannot exist if you do

And yet, you are not the fundamental crux of this argument. Do you believe that God must be omniscient (meaning that God knows everything there is to know) or omnipotent (having the power to do anything)? Do you believe that God created the universe or is he just an element of the universe like the rest of us? Since all 3 of these aspects kind of go hand in hand (If God has the power to create the universe, it follows he has the power to create it as he wishes. If God knows everything he knows how to create a universe) they are complimentary. If not, you have to start placing limits on what God is. God is not the god of the Bible and instead is more like Oden in the Thor movies. Traditionally I speak of the god of the Bible. The one who knows all, sees all, and is the creator of the heaven and the Earth. You know that every choice you've ever made has a cause. You drive left because you know that's the better route. You watch a show on TV because you heard about it from a friend. Name one choice you make that hasn't been influenced by previous decisions. Theoretically this could all be traced back to the beginning of the universe. It stands to reason that God could have (or still does) influence these factors to mold the universe to his liking. Revelations even speaks of the "end times" so God obviously knows how everything will turn out and the events leading up to them. So was that just a prediction? Is there something that God doesn't know? Something he can't do? If you start placing limits on his power or his knowledge, doesn't that just place him in the category of some super powered being instead of a god?
God cannot exist if you do

This is based on a simple premise: God, whatever god you choose is traditionally said to be omniscient as well as omnipotent. Now, consider that you as a consciousness are the sum of your choices. Do I choose to go left or go right? Do I buy pizza from store A or store B? So on and so forth. Does God already know which direction I will choose? Which pizza I will buy? Supposedly God knew these things before I was even conceived, correct? God is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful. Where do my choices truly lie? Do I have a choice at all? Did God know if I was going to be a sinner or a saint when he created the universe? And if he did, am I really responsible for being a sinner or a saint? Supposedly he could have molded the universe in such a way that I would become whatever he needed or wanted me to be. God's plan, some call it. Therein lies the kicker. If I have a choice, a real choice of A or B, something God did not know about when he first designed the universe, then he (or she) is by definition NOT all-knowing and NOT all-powerful. Choice is a power. And what we choose is known only to us along with why we choose it. So do we, as conscious entities, truly exist if there is an all-powerful all-knowing being, unaffected by time who knows every choice we have or will ever make? And if we do exist, if we have that power... is God... less than a god?
Is God real

I believe they all have different interpretations of God in general. To say God cannot exist because there are other beliefs does not prove or disprove anything; it is simply the assertion that there are many religions, and many interpretations as to what God is. To assert the idea that God does not exist would mean you would need to show evidence of first hand exploration of literally everything. I am not asserting that God does exist, but I am debating against the idea that he definitely does not. I'm glad we had a good debate and I'm glad you had fun, so did I!