BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
NDEs and OBEs are Not Experiences, They are Hallucinations So Should Correctly Be NDHs and OBHs.

Hello!I, unfortunately, am not a medical genius. However, I will argue via the English point of view.An experience is: practical contact with and observation of facts or events. etc. As you already statedAn event however is: a thing that happens, esp. one of importance.and to happen is to occur. Now I wish to draw to your attention one such synonym for happen is to materialize which is to appear in spiritual form. Hallucination appears to fall within the half spiritual category. I do agree nobody actually can provide proof [i.e. allowing someone into their brain] but I believe it proof enough that so many people of different origins, races etc all experienced this. Despite not having proof per se, it is not responsible or possible to rule out the possibility of this being real. And allow me to remind you a hallucination is typically of th unreal form. Why our brain experiences NDE [or NDH if you prefer] is not known. True. But there are many very possible factors. These include deprivation of oxygen or perhaps a physical shutdown of the body temporarily. However, NDE is widely considered and accepted as a real event and in no way is simply a hallucination. In fact, there are even characteristics that are common for this. A sense/awareness of being dead. A sense of peace, well-being and painlessness. Positive emotions. A sense of removal from the world. An out of body experience. A perception of one's body from an outside position. Sometimes observing doctors and nurses performing medical resuscitation efforts. A "tunnel experience". A sense of moving up, or through, a passageway or staircase. A rapid movement toward and/or sudden immersion in a powerful light. Communication with the light. An intense feeling of unconditional love. Encountering "Beings of Light", "Beings dressed in white", or similar. Also, the possibility of being reunited with deceased loved ones. Receiving a life review Receiving a "life preview" in the cases of George Ritchie and Betty Eadie, which Ring calls an NDE "Flash Forward". Receiving knowledge about one's life and the nature of the universe A decision by oneself or others to return to one's body, often accompanied by a reluctance to return. Approaching a border. The notice of unpleasant sound or noise (claimed by R. Moody). Connection to the cultural beliefs held by the individual, which seem to dictate the phenomena experienced in the NDE and the later interpretation thereof (Holden, Janice Miner. Handbook of Near-Death Experiences. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publishing Data, 2009.). A sense of going across a bridge where the dead relatives are calling. http://en.wikipedia.org... Now, obviously, NDE can be easily passed off as crazy or insane. But it is pretty hard to put it down as a hallucination if a great number of people experience it, can we?
NDEs and OBEs are Not Experiences, They are Hallucinations So Should Correctly Be NDHs and OBHs.

My opponent again uses his round to delve into his religious views and spends one sentence discussing the topic at hand. "On Christianity, Morality, Illusion, Delusion, all which are relevant to NDHs and OBEs is that they are Illusions"These six items corrolate in the strangest of fashions- if at all. Morality, the act of being moral, is most definitely not an illusion. An illusion is, of course, as pointed out by my opponent, synonymous. Same can be said for delusion. Christianity, however, is not an illusion. An illusion is something wrongfully perceived by one's senses. It would impress me greatly if you could wrongfully perceive something like Christianity with your five senses.NDE and OBE are not illusions because they are not wrongfully perceived. They are seen, heard, felt by your senses and truly percevied. It is a ridiculous argument that one does not perceive NDE and OBE.
NDEs and OBEs are Not Experiences, They are Hallucinations So Should Correctly Be NDHs and OBHs.

For somebody that disagrees so heavily with religion cite:[It is okay to force Creationist beliefs on someone else]. http://www.debate.org...[Religious Fundamentalists are the Least Intelligent Humans]. http://www.debate.org...you certainly trust heavily in Buddhism. A single religion's beliefs [as you so eloquently state in a few of your debates] do not reflect the truth. Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences are not simply hallucinations. "unreal, imaginary, subjective event "Unreal is certainly possible. The definition of unreal being so strange as to appear imaginary; not seeming real. But that simply states it not appearing real. Not that it isn't. Imaginary, however, is simply not likely. Please check out this link . http://iands.org... I realize IANDS. org is a biased source but aren't all sources that way now? Especially your whyevolutionisture. wordpress. com. In fact, a Google link check simply shows many more personal biased blogs linking ba to it and as a result is not, in my opinion, reliable. To be subjective is to be based on one's whims. I don't recall many people daydreaming about dying or coming close to it. And again, after reading so many eloquent essays on how religion is stupid, moronic, wrong. .. I do not understand how you can reference a religion to prove your point on a simple name change.
The legal drinking age should be 18 years of age

The drinking age is inconsistent with what the law considers an adult. We can as stated earlier make life changing and vital decisions about life, death and anything in between but we simply can't consume alcohol. Some may consider it as far as unconstitutional to single out a group that are considered already legal adults. Scientific arguments relating to the importance of an individual being matured and fully developed to drink alcohol is irreverent. The studies my opponent provided couldn't clearly decipher an age in which this age occurs and therefore these studies are not applicable. We must refer back to what the law classifies an adult. Drinking and driving is a problem seen in any age group. We blame the younger kids even though they aren't even the worst age group statistically.So I therefore agree that raising the drinking age would be preventive measures but if we are going by statistics, we have to change the drinking age to 65. This is where we see the least amount of drinking and driving in recent years according to http://www.census.gov.... Drinking and driving stats from the 1970's are conclusive but only applicable to that time period. Yes it is clear, there was 11% decrease in fatalities but that was a very long time ago. It is 2012 and about 40 years later. We have seen a drastic change in society. We have new standards for inspections and safety regulations. We have large activists groups fighting for harsher punishment and many schools are educating kids on drinking and driving. The same applies for other countries. To assume that there statistics apply to our country would be a fallacy. We have different cultural values and live in a much different society. Kids in our generation are drinking regardless of the legal age. This is proven by facts provided by every alcohol related activist group. I believe that lowering the age will allow the drinking to be more supervised and less hidden. Hiding drinking leads to excessive binge drinking and avoidable injuries and deaths. It doesn't matter if they drink the beer in someones basement or at a bar, they are still going to consume the same beer. In conclusion the drinking age should be lowered to 18 because it is fair and consistent with the law. 18 year old's are considered adults in every other aspect of their life and drinking should be no different.
The legal drinking age should be 18 years of age

Drinking and Driving: A significant amount of your argument has been based upon the assumption that alcohol related driving incidents decrease with a higher drinking age. I disagree for two reasons: 1. Kids are going to consume alcohol regardless of the drinking age. The facts are listed on SADD's website. Their research even says that 72% of students have consumed more than a few sips of alcohol by the end of high school. That is almost three quarters of high school students! So in reality what is the drinking age doing? It is just ensuring they can't order the drinks in public. Instead they are forcing the drinking behind unsupervised doors. This is were binge drinking occurs and I do concur this is dangerous at any age.According to the Choose Responsibility Organization 90% of the drinking done by 18-20 years is in the form binge drinking and because it is something kids are trying to hide it becomes very dangerous. Choose Responsibility has the belief that kids don't have the education about alcohol this is why letting them figure it out on their own, can be fatal. Lowering the drinking age will allow them to go to a bar and have a couple drinks socially instead of drinking till they black out. There are many examples of kids at parties dying of alcohol related deaths because their friends just didn't know or want to call for help. Glen Berlin Parrish (http://articles.latimes.com...) and Ali Quartaro (http://www.chooseresponsibility.org...) are just two stories of many. Because of these facts, I can not see how the drinking age is stopping underage drinking. 2. You provided support that suggests that under-age drinkers are more likely to drink and drive and therefore a higher drinking age is a preventative action. This is suggesting that every driver under 21 is completely irresponsible. But as stated above we definitely have our share of high school drinkers in the United States and we have even more drinking and driving occurring amongst our assuming "more responsible" individuals at higher ages. According to the governments statistics at http://www.census.gov..., in 2009 majority of drinking and driving is occurring amongst our legal drinkers aged 25-34 and older. The fact that we have undoubtedly have underage drinking epidemic in our country and still see the more mature adults being the irresponsible ones is unfair, for example, to any 18 year old U.S. soldier who can drink responsibly and is not allowed. I agree drunk driving is unacceptable. I disagree that the drinking age impacts the statistics as greatly as it may be portrayed by organizations. Your argument claims that the higher the age, the less drinking and driving we will witness. Well then we should just as well raise the legal drinking age to 50 or outlaw alcohol because that would eliminate drinking and driving altogether. Clearly, we tried that once and it failed.
The legal drinking age should be 18 years of age

Answer to: 2. "teens get drunk easily" The Center for Disease Control fact sheet states that "Current drinking during the previous month among persons aged 18 to 20 years declined significantly from 59% in 1985 to 40% in 1991, coincident with states' adopting an age 21 minimum legal drinking age, but increased to 47% by 1999.3" You paraphrased this source but left out the increase in 1999 and therefore using this as support that the drinking age caused this decrease is contradictory when given all the information. 3. "The development of a young brain is affected differently with alcohol then with adult brains." You have made arguments repetitively using the term "adult". Your arguments reflect the idea that adults are more equipped to handle the consumption of alcohol in various ways. The issue comes with the term "adult" because according the the United States, an 18 year old is exactly that. For example your source, The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, use the term adolescence several times but only have a very broad age definition in which they can only pin down the term to mean 25 years and younger. In addition, the study based on rats that they are gathering the information from uses animals of wide range. "Adolescence in humans is broadly defined as the second decade of life, although some researchers consider ages up to 25 years as "late adolescence." The corresponding period in laboratory animals that are frequently used as study subjects is just as loosely defined." Therefore, this study could be more related to that of a 12 year old or a 24 year old but we are specially debating over the issue of the 18 year old. This goes along with my first argument and the inconsistencies that we see in the term "adult". Researchers make many claims about the affects of alcohol on youth verses adults but we don't see consistency in the definition. In conclusion, if scientists and healthcare professionals consider alcohol consumption to be okay for adults and the United States defines an 18 year old as an adults then anyone 18 years of age should legally be allowed to drink.
The legal drinking age should be 18 years of age

Rebuttal one: Accidental plagiarism by prohttp://drinkingage.procon.org... Please use its arguments or sources, but don't just C/P it giving them no credit. Just quote it link it to that site, or just use a foot note then say directly from source, or paraphrase it then link it to their sources etc. You quoted it to the wrong source.Rebuttal 2: doesn't save lives "Specifically, the study published in the July 2008 issue of the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention found that laws making it illegal to possess or purchase alcohol by anyone under the age of 21 had led to an eleven percent drop in alcohol-related traffic deaths among youth; secondly, they found that states with strong laws against fake IDs reported seven percent fewer alcohol-related fatalities among drivers under the age of 21." [1] Now, this shows a great connection of the higher drinking age and lower fatalities. Also I looked up your argument here, and little evidence came up with it. "In addition, other shorter-term studies found that the rates of DUI accidents, other drinking behaviors, suicides, and homicides were higher in states with lower drinking ages." [2] Now, this shows that higher drinking ages lower the amount of driving accidents. This is a great find, areas with higher drinking ages have less accidents, hence a higher drinking age is better. Also, as the source mentions, states with higher drinking ages have less mental disorders linked to alcohol. [2] This means it decreases youth users, which logically ----> less accidents. In the same study, it shows that a lower drinking age deceases suicides. [3] This is logical as drinking causes suicidal actions sometimes. [4] As I said before, the higher drinking age lowers users, therefore decreasing suicide rates. Also the higher drinking age has saves 20,000 lives. [5] [6] [7]=conclusion=My opponent only tried to refute one argument, which I have defended. I must extend the other 2 dropped arguments. VOTE CON!!!sourceshttp://www.sciencedaily.com... [1]http://au.ibtimes.com... [2]http://www.theatlantic.com... [3]http://www.teensuicide.us... [4]http://www.madd.org... [5]http://www.espad.org... [6]DiClemente, Ralph J. et al “Parental Monitoring: Association With Adolescents' Risk Behaviors” Pediatrics 107: 6 June 2001, 1363-1368 [7]
The legal drinking age should be 18 years of age

And still when the United States increased the the drinking age to 21, its rate of traffic fatalities in the 1980s decreased less than that of European countries whose legal drinking ages are lower than 21 and therefore is proof that the drinking age doesn't play such a prominent role in preventing these fatalities. [1] In addition, "While Legal Age 21 may have played in role in the decline of alcohol-related traffic fatalities documented over the past two decades, it is impossible to claim a cause and effect relationship. Instead, the decline represents the cumulative effect of a series of changes that have combined to make driving under the influence the target of social disapproval in the United States. Motor vehicles are safer, air bags are required by law, law enforcement has been made more vigorous with improvements in Breathalyzer and radar technology, the legal BAC limit is lower, designated drivers--a term unknown before the mid-1980s--are used frequently, and, perhaps most importantly, seatbelt use has increased from about 14% in 1983 to 80% in 2004. All of these changes have combined to create a set of societal norms and attitudes that promote sober and responsible driving and discourage drunken driving." [2] Barry M. Sweedler, "The Worldwide Decline in Drinking and Driving: Has It Continued?," Presentation for the 15th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety in Stockholm (Sweden), www.ntsb.gov, May 2000 [1] Choose Responsibiltiy, "FAQs," www.chooseresponsibility.org (accessed Oct. 19, 2010) [2]
The legal drinking age should be 18 years of age

C1: Raising the drinking age to 21 has saved lives For ages 18-20 raising the drinking age to 21 has lowered accidents under the influence of alcohol by 13%. [1] It has also has saved 21,887 lives. [1] If we lowered he drinking age like in Europe, it would end lives, In the US we drive younger therefore allowing a lower drinking age would kill many people. [2] The evidence is clear, consistent and compelling: A drinking age of 21 has led to less drinking, fewer injuries and fewer deaths. [3] C2: teens get drunk easily "The age limit for alcohol is based on research which shows that young people react differently to alcohol. Teens get drunk twice as fast as adults" [4] [5] Drinking at young ages are severely risky. [6] A 21 drinking age has lowered the amount of kids using alcohol. [7] [8] And the earlier people begin drinking the more likely they are to stay addicted through their adult hod. [9] So it lowers the amount of kids drinking, which is a good thing. C3: The development of a young brain is affected differently with alcohol then with adult brains. "Adolescence is such a critical phase in brain development that the actions of alcohol and other drugs on the brain can be assumed to have a particularly profound impact during this developmental period. Indeed, research has shown that compared with the adult brain, the adolescent brain is particularly sensitive to some effects of alcohol, yet more resistant to other effects. " [10] Basically it is resilient towards some effects but overall is sensitive. Adolescents are more likely to be affected memory wise by alcohol than adults. [11] Also these kids will have sleep, growth, violence, and suicidal thought due to drinking. [11] "Research suggests that alcohol may affect the adolescent brain more adversely than an adult's since a child's brain is in a state of transition and undergoing development." [12] Refutations: My arguments refute hers. =conclusion= As the 21 drinking age saves lives, lowers the amount of youth alcohol users, and therefore lowers the amount of kids having long term alcohol problems the drinking age should not be increased. VOTE CON. National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA), "Traffic Safety Facts 2002," [1] A. Wagenaar and T. Toomey, "Effects of Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analyses of the Literature from 1960 to 2000," Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 2002 [2] http://articles.cnn.com... [3] http://www.madd.org... [4] National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Statistics on Underage Drinking [5] http://www.nlm.nih.gov... [6] http://www.cdc.gov... [7] O'Malley PM, Wagenaar AC. Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors, and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976–1987. J Stud Alcohol 1991;52:478–491. [8] Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), "Underage Drinking and the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) Law," [9] http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov... [10] http://www.kkdf.org... [11] http://www.alcoholmd.com... [12]
The legal drinking age should be 18 years of age

I believe that the legal age of alcohol consumption should be lowered once again to 18 years old. I will argue this is the case for several reasons. The first reason involves the inconsistency of responsibility that the law sees fit for an 18 year old. At 18, we receive many opportunities and responsibilities such as voting, serving on a jury, joining the military, getting a gun permit, signing a contract and getting married but buying a pack of cigarettes or ordering a beer is out of the question. If they are old enough to make medical decisions for themselves than they should be able to chose what they put in their bodies. I don't see how the government could suggest that voting is something to be taken lighter than drinking. If you're able to join the military and fight for our country then you should be able to go to the bar and order a beer.
TRUMP is weird

Donald Trump is not weird. He is an extremely smart person, has a beautiful wife and children, and holds one of the highest positions in the world. You don't have an argument for why he is weird. You just don't like his position, so you attack him on a personal basis. To start, he is an extremely successful real estate broker. He owns a multi billion dollar industry, has property all over the country, and had a great and fair career. America loves him because he owned an honest business and isn't a lifetime politician. Next, he has an extremely beautiful and smart wife, who is an immigrant. She is multilingual, an immigrant who is living the american dream, and has been an awesome first lady so far. The only reason that you would say Trump is weird is because you disagree with his position, so you attack him on a personal basis.
Medical Marijuana

The main problem, is that Medical Marijuana is often used as an excuse for drug addiction. Since legalizing Marijuana allows young children and adults to become possibly addicted to the drug, it is best that we avoid taking risks by making Medical Marijuana illegal. This, however, will not offend one's rights as harmful substances should not be legally administered under any circumstances. This is why, poisonous substances are not allowed to be prescribed legally, as they are often more harmful than helpful. In conclusion, using Marijuana as a therapy or medicine is highly dangerous as there are more than effective ways to treat symptoms. Legalizing this drug, will only be overall counterproductive to a patient's physical and mental health.
Medical Marijuana

Nevertheless, there are aspects I would like to note: 1: Con has failed to address any of my supports up to the conclusion thus conceding to each and every single point of mine. 2: Con has repeatedly ignored the point made that it is up to users to decide on what to do with marijuana. He has only reiterated his point on how harmful marijuana CAN be, never addressing the user's decision nor defending any rebuttals by Pro (me). 3. Recall the phrase issued by Con "damages brain, repertory. .. " This is completely absurd. Repertory refers to a theatrical presentation which is completely deviating from this debate.
Medical Marijuana

You must however, understand that unlike other items, taking just one dose Marijuana will already leave an imprint in a human's neurological systems which numbs out certain senses. Despite the controlled dose, usage of Marijuana will greatly increase the chance of being addicted to it, even with minimal usage. In addition, Marijuana will ultimately harm users more aside from partial success in treating symptoms. In fact, Marijuana is a major cause of cancer and neuro issues as it not only damages brain, repertory, immune, and physical functions but is also highly addictive. There are other methods of curing these symptoms in a safer, more conducive way. tinyurl.com/75csfjs tinyurl.com/6rxtqmc tinyurl.com/ysanqh tinyurl.com/88pkvm8