BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
minus is impossible.. destruction

I'm sorry, I'm still unsure whether you are arguing that subtraction does not exist or if you are arguing the law of conservation of energy. Or perhaps you are arguing that subtraction does not exist because of the law of conservation. If you are meaning to argue for the Law of Conservation of Energy (that energy can not be created or destroyed) it is difficult to debate such a thing, as there really isn't any evidence to support any kind of argument. It would be like arguing that gravity did not exist. There really is nothing to dispute. I was using the apples/oranges analogy to describe how one form of energy could be converted into a different form, even if the two forms have different "densities", while keeping the law of conservation. I was just trying to show that subtraction was taking place within the apples and conserving all the "energy". Energy isn't a real, physical, thing. A fast-moving ball "has" energy in the same way it "has" speed. It's more difficult to talk about the transfer of energy in this way so I opted to make an analogy that made energy a physical thing (an apple or orange). It just seemed better than saying something like "some of the speed of the ball is transfered into the volume of the sound created when the ball hits a wall." In that case it seems just as absurd to think speed can transform somehow into sound intensity, as it does to say 2 apples transform somehow into an orange.
minus is impossible.. destruction

but the energy going to a light bulb dosnt become or is nothing, becasue it is making the light bulb shine.. the light bulb shining is energy going into the atmosphere or whatver.. but if you put to much energy on positive and negative charge to a piece of metal it will melt the metal.. you are right electricity becomes heat, in that case.. and that is transformation not destruction sure, but im talking about the full electrical circuit for it to exist.. there has to be positive and negative in a circuit for them to make a light bulb shine hm a battery is not much different to a cd holder.. you take out the cds and its empty matter can not be destroyed.. im not sure i understand your example, but simply if 2 apples become and orange somehow, that is the apples transforming into an orange.. where else would the orange come from?
Legalization of marijuana

"There are no reports of Marijuana related deaths." Let's see... Hamish Turner, the president of the Coroners' Society, told The Telegraph that the marijuana, often portrayed as harmless, has increasingly been the cause of deaths that have been reported as accidents or suicides. "Cannabis is as dangerous as any other drug and people must understand that it kills," said Mr Turner. "From my long experience I can say that it is a very dangerous substance. Increasingly it is mentioned not only as the first drug taken by people who overdose, but also in suicides and accidental deaths. [1] Plus, taking marijuana and driving afterwards reduces the driver's concentration. [2] This could be an "accidental" death. Plus, my opponent did not adequately refute my following arguments: Marijuana will create a billion-dollar bubble that will burst someday. Harms non-addicts by impaired driving. Distracts farmers from their job. Pro also changed standing on this several times. Round 1: He thinks marijuana is only imagined to be harmful and should not be banned. "Even though some people THINK that marijuana is bad for health and should be illegal, ..." Round 2: Now he changes to: Just because alcohol is legal means marijuana should be legal. "I can see strong connection between marijuana and alcohol, but alcohol is still legal and profitable." Round 3: Now he says that it does not cause death, while ignoring my following arguments: impaired driving (indirect death), all the symptoms, the big bubble it will make in the economy (Which will eventually burst.) and distracting farmers from their job. Then he goes on to say that just people will find illegal ways to get it, it should be legal. In conclusion, Pro only said prohibition of marijuana (cannabis) will not work, but the only reason he gave is that it is costly (with no source listed) and if it works or not is only based on Pro's personal experience, because he did not list how many people smoke cannabis before and after banning, etc. Marijuana harms victims both directly (by overdose) and indirectly (impaired driving), and legalizing it will only cause this bubble (Which will pop.): Marijuana company sells marijuana--> People get sick --> Higher medicaid and medicare costs--> The tax the marijuana corporation fills in the blank--> Corporation expands, resulting in more drug users--> The circle goes all over again. [1]http://alcoholism.about.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Legalization of marijuana

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths are attributed to alcohol use alone. On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society, American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of, if not the least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This "thousands of times" is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Also it is easier for school children to obtain marijuana than beer or cigarettes, because marijuana dialers do not care how old people are as long as they have money, and because alcohol and cigarettes are legal and regulated to keep it away from kids. In conclusion, throughout the history humanity used marijuana for different purposes, and no matter if it is legal or not people will continue using it in the future. Humanity has no other choice rather than legalize it and profit from it, because prohibitions and wars against marijuana are not working and never will.
Legalization of marijuana

"Moreover, humanity also loses out on the benefits of industrial hemp, which has no recreational effect and could be an extremely useful crop for farmers and industry. And even though governments are wasting enormous amount of money on "Marijuana War", humanity is still not wining in it. As governments at all levels pour more lawyers, guns, and money into this militarized marijuana prohibition, people still obtain it easily and supply and demand are totally uninterrupted on a macro scale; one dealer falls, another pops up. War on marijuana, like alcohol prohibition before it, creates and fuels the criminal underclass, organized crime, and drug cartels. If marijuana were legalized, violent drug cartels would lose the principal source of their income. Also legalizing marijuana would create a new multi-billion dollar industry with a substance that can be taxed by the government, thereby, generating more money to fund government programs and create more jobs." As I said before, Marijuana is harmful to health, and also affects non-addicts too, in ways such as impaired driving. With this legalized, medicaid will need more money, and there is still more victims, while the corporations make big money selling marijuana. This tax partially fills in the higher medicaid costs, but the marijuana corporation gets more money and expands. As it expands, it makes more people consume marijuana, so there is a higher medicaid cost. This loop makes a bubble that will eventually burst. The stock market is not going to be the only one hit, but also people's health. Plus, marijuana is not a "extremely useful crop" as it is unnecessary for people's survival. This also takes up space that people can use for essential food crops like: Wheat, soybeans, corn, potatoes, carrots, lettuce, spinach, rice, barley, etc. In conclusion: Marijuana: Does not help the economy other than creating a billion-dollar bubble that will burst someday; is bad to people's health; also harms non-addicts and distracts farmers from their actual job.
Legalization of marijuana

Through all your arguments such as: "Around 80 to 90 per cent of crime is related to alcohol and drug misuse, according to one of New Zealand's top judges."[2], 1. It IS harmful to health, not just imagined to be. 3. It also causes crime., It impairs concentration, [1] which could potentially cause the same danger as drinking and driving. No one wants people to get injured in a car crash. I can see strong connection between marijuana and alcohol, but alcohol is still legal and profitable, not because it is good for health but because no matter if it is legal or not, people will still use it. Same thing with marijuana. Moreover, humanity also loses out on the benefits of industrial hemp, which has no recreational effect and could be an extremely useful crop for farmers and industry. And even though governments are wasting enormous amount of money on "Marijuana War", humanity is still not wining in it. As governments at all levels pour more lawyers, guns, and money into this militarized marijuana prohibition, people still obtain it easily and supply and demand are totally uninterrupted on a macro scale; one dealer falls, another pops up. War on marijuana, like alcohol prohibition before it, creates and fuels the criminal underclass, organized crime, and drug cartels. If marijuana were legalized, violent drug cartels would lose the principal source of their income. Also legalizing marijuana would create a new multi-billion dollar industry with a substance that can be taxed by the government, thereby, generating more money to fund government programs and create more jobs
Legalization of marijuana

"Some people think that marijuana is bad for health." It is bad for health, this is a fact, not something people think. "Aside from a subjective change in perception and, most notably, mood, the most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, increased appetite and consumption of food,lowered blood pressure, impairment of short-term and working memory, psychomotor coordination, and concentration. Long-term effects are less clear. A July 2012 report in Brain reveals neural-connectivity impairment in some brain regions following prolonged cannabis use initiated in adolescence or young adulthood. " [1] Cannabis is another word for marijuana. [1] "Prohibition does not help in any way it causes problems and costs big money. The U.S. government currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase PEACEFUL people who use marijuana." 1st, Banning this will help, because it prevents all these heart rate increasing and decreasing memory and the not-so-clear long term impact. 2nd, These are not peaceful people. There are drug related crimes everywhere. These "Peaceful" people could possibly be criminals. "Around 80 to 90 per cent of crime is related to alcohol and drug misuse, according to one of New Zealand's top judges."[2] Plus, "does not help in any way" is not a valid argument as you do not have any sources to back it up. Now I'll say why you should ban marijuana. 1. It IS harmful to health, not just imagined to be. 2. Without proper medical knowledge, ingestion of it can be potentially dangerous. 3. It also causes crime. 4. It impairs concentration, [1] which could potentially cause the same danger as drinking and driving. No one wants people to get injured in a car crash. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.stuff.co.nz...
Legalization of marijuana

Even though some people think that marijuana is bad for health and should be illegal, still for the society it is more beneficial to legalize it rather than waste money on ineffective war against it. Prohibition does not help in any way it causes problems and costs big money, that U.S. government currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who use marijuana, and that taxpayers have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up
books is stupid

First, let's see what stupid means.Stupid: Lacking intelligence or common sense.http://www.google.ca...Furthermore, note that a book is not a living being, so therefore, it cannot lack intelligence itself, as it has no intelligence. Therefore this resolution is false.my opponent be hatin on my spelling and all that, thats bull tho.With books, you can read actual words. This way, you can learn spelling and grammer, and how to structure your sentences. The proof I use to back up this claim? Pro does not read books so he is unable to write a grammatically correct sentence. Therefore, obviously, books are not stupid, as they give readers intelligence. aight when i read books i get mad bored and all tat so i just quit it, movies are fun to watch tho and u actualy see stuff goin on.This does not actually prove that books are stupid. All this proves is that books are boring to you. Boring and stupid are two different things. This is going off topic. Pro is generalizing everyone into one opinion. He assumes that movies are fun for everyone to watch. He does not realize that there may be some people that do not get bored with books and are bored with movies instead. Therefore, this line of reasoning is false.u got to imagin stuf for books n that gets tirinAgain, this only proves that books are tiring, not stupid.if you wach educatinal things then u rly lern stuff too and get smart.Notice the wording in this sentence. I know, really difficult to read. Anyhow, Pro says "too". Therefore, he is agreeing that reading books makes you learn stuff and get smart. Therefore, Pro has conceded the debate to me and has made the resolution false. Therefore, books do not make you stupid. u dont even need books now caus movies replase them. No matter what, society will always need some sort of book. May it be a print book or an e-book. This is because there must be someway to document history. Documenting history as time moves on cannot be done with a movie. At one point, it must be written down or typed up. For example, say Obama dies in a train accident tomorrow. A movie cannot be made immediately. The history and event must be recorded in someway, and then later be made into a movie. That is why movies cannot replace all books.
books is stupid

my opponent be hatin on my spelling and all that, thats bull tho. books be stupid. aight when i read books i get mad bored and all tat so i just quit it, movies are fun to watch tho and u actualy see stuff goin on. u got to imagin stuf for books n that gets tirin. if you wach educatinal things then u rly lern stuff too and get smart. u dont even need books now caus movies replase them.
pretending to be smart, is the same as a fart. Youngsters are stupid.

Oh, looky here,PRO wants to debate.I'm sorry, it's sad to say, but it is way to freaking late.It took you 3 whole rounds to even present a freaking case.I mean, dang, can you see this lack of talent?It's like bringing a toy gun to a gun fight,You don't count as a combatant.No sources, no credit.That's the way these things work.Your rapping is worse than Miley's weak attempts to twerk.Go home and read a book, you might get better grammar.This debate has got me feeling like a judge with an iron hammer.I bang my gavel on the desk, and you grovel, Just like the silly little witch in her hovel.I got you begging for mercy,You should call me King ArthurEven Camolet hates you, you're not much of a charmer.Now onto my rebuttals, as if there's any need.You should pay attention, learn how to do the deed.I mean, really, it's sad that you want to call us stupidYet bring up technology as if we don't know how to use it.Obviously, if we use the web, we have some kind of knowledge, Even elders bow down to us, paying us homage.You'd be wise to follow the crowd, Mr. Wallace.At this point, you're looking like naught more than a novice.You made a claim, but can't affirm it.BoP: you need to learn itMaybe next time, you'll make this slightly hard.I'm gonna leave you a smile and a copy of my calling card...Pfalcon1305Email: bringthepain @rapbattle.ddo.orgPhone: 1-800-SERVEAHOE
pretending to be smart, is the same as a fart. Youngsters are stupid.

Winners here are nothing but blinded deer. That is the nature of here. Win on el chimpiano! El hoorayo for your big rag. You stuck me in the loser bag, so unite with your fellow fools, kiddos on the titty tool. Got a buck you made yourself, a house a truck, ever even caught a mouse? Tello us please, el genioso. How smart your limited time here is, with only technology in your bin of knowledge. Quote the wiki, .com or orgy. That is the youth of today.
pretending to be smart, is the same as a fart. Youngsters are stupid.

Aww, I thought we were doing some kind of rap battle thing.Oh, well. PRO has yet to posit their burden of proof. I can't even understand PRO's second round. Given that, PRO is at a disadvantage here. This is a three round debate, PRO has full Burden of Proof, and he has not offered any argument at all.I am wondering if this is a troll debate, to be honest. I think I'm going to do another mini-rap here.PRO is at a lossIt seems he's kind of shook.He's talking a lot of crazinessAnd has no arguments to boot.I mean, dude, come on.At least make this a challenge.It's almost like a priveledged man dealing with a savage.You're at a loss for words, and don't know how to act.And you have absolutely no idea how to start up your attack. I might as well sit back, and let the votes roll in.'Cuz at the rate you're going, I know I'm gonna' win.
pretending to be smart, is the same as a fart. Youngsters are stupid.

Max.Wallace makes the claim that us youngsters are stupidBut he doesn't provide the necessary argument to prove it.I mean, look at these attempts to insult a generation.Honestly, I think it's just a poor excuse to hate 'em.You know, I don't think I'll even offer up an argument'Cuz this doesn't deserve to even be called arguin'.This dude's a chump.He really needs to get a style guide.Otherwise, I'm gonna' take his lyrics for a ride.Like a Ducati on the freeway, I can get up to 100 in 3Trust me, you don't want it.I advise you not to try me.Go take yourself some Asprin, before you give yourself a headache.This really ain't the kind of battle in which you need to participate.
Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory.

Hello. Before I start off, I want to say a couple things. First of all, I won't actually have much to argue in this debate, because there's only so much I can say. Second, I want my opponent to know that I agree with everything he just said in his opening argument. This might seem that I have just disproved my entire argument, but that is not true. Unfortunately, my opponent is fighting the wrong battle. The topic of this debate is: "Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory." My opponent used his opening statement to argue how unfair and messed up the current social security system is, all of which I agree with. However, that argument belongs under a topic such as "The current social security system should be changed." The issue we address in this debate is different. All to be argued about here is whether or not people have to pay. I would like t go bit by bit. 1) My opponent has not addressed any of my points, which means I win them by default. "To show my position in this debate, I ask my opponent and all readers one question. If paying into the current social security system, as unfair as it currently is, becomes optional, who would pay it? And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?" 2) The topic of the debate allows for the social security system to be changed. My argument only says that paying into the current social security system should not be mandatory. (And yes, that means no one would pay it.) But it doesn't say that we can't make a new social security system. 3) For example, the government should set up a private savings account for each individual citizen. These accounts will only be accessible by the person, and only once they reach age 60. 4) I have addressed all o my opponent's arguments, and she has not addressed any of mine. Vote for the best argument, please.
Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory.

Hello. Before I start off, I want to say a couple things. First of all, I won't actually have much to argue in this debate, because there's only so much I can say. Second, I want my opponent to know that I agree with everything he just said in his opening argument. This might seem that I have just disproved my entire argument, but that is not true. Unfortunately, my opponent is fighting the wrong battle. The topic of this debate is: "Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory." My opponent used his opening statement to argue how unfair and messed up the current social security system is, all of which I agree with. However, that argument belongs under a topic such as "The current social security system should be changed." The issue we address in this debate is different. All to be argued about here is whether or not people have to pay. To show my position in this debate, I ask my opponent and all readers one question. If paying into the current social security system, as unfair as it currently is, becomes optional, who would pay it? And, if no one paid, where would the financial support needed come from?
Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory.

My opening argument is very simple. 1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme 2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class 3) It gives a very low amount of money back. http://en.wikipedia.org......(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return 4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.
Death Penalty

< > The person convicted with murder will be in prison for life, if not given the death penalty. So they will not have the chance to be out in society to kill again. So, basically the above statement is false, because the supposed "victims" would be otherwise protected by the criminals life long incarceration. There can be a no parole stipulation put on sentencing, by the way. <> There is a big difference in killing in the heat of violence, and killing a trapped, and otherwise harmless criminal. There is no way that this person can kill again, so your arguments are rubbish in section of your argument. Morally, it makes a world of sense, because why continue death where it is NOT NECESSARY. < > If you were a lifelong inmate, I doubt you would enjoy it, and think it a nice place to be. By the by, these death roll inmates don't go straight to the chair, or to get the lethal injection right after they're death sentence. For years, and YEARS, we still must pay for they're food, and whatever else they need. Isn't it MORE of a punishment, to prolong the imprisonment? After death, your no longer in jail. Your no longer anything, if you don't belive in an after life. Why do them the favor of killing them to get them out of a sentence? Steve, you state that it is not for revenge people want the death penalty for murderers. Then, you go on to talk about the pain that these people feel while being murdered, compared to those they've killed. The definition of revenge, is: to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit. The death penalty sure sounds like revenge to me. Also, you failed to address AT ALL my taking notice of the cost inefficiency of this method.