BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Barack Obama was recently pwnt by Rio de Janeiro

Here's what I have to say to Obama right now: http://www.tf2wiki.net... Basically, he was totally pwnt by the Rio Olympics thing. He got all that publicity and junk and few not one, but TWO planes to Chicago, and was all like "Yo homies! I'ma bring teh Olympics here!!11! Don't worry man, I got this!" Then the first city that was totally [expletive]'d by voting was Chicago. If that's an epic fail in your book, I don't know what is. Well, possibly this:---------------> http://www.youtube.com... Anyways, I am debating anyone who is so nuts as to take Obama's side here, or someone who agrees with me and just wants to see where I'm going to go with this.
Federal Provided School Lunches Should be at Least 50% Organic

I think that the main issue of this debate is whether or not organic food is healthier than non organic food. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for healthy lunches being provided in school but I don't think my opponent has or can provide any evidence to back this claim up. Organic food has been proven to have a negligible effect on the healthiness or otherwise of that food [1]. However organic food is substantially more expensive [2]. So at the end of the day asking schools to provide 50% organic food would simply stretch the budgets of schools further for a negligible on how healthy the food is. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] http://money.howstuffworks.com... ("The USDA estimates that organically-produced food can cost anywhere from 10 to 30 percent more than conventionally mass-produced food.").
Federal Provided School Lunches Should be at Least 50% Organic

The U.S. National School Lunch program serves about 5,500,000,000 meals (1) per day. About 11 million children are served per day in the National School Breakfast program (1) and 31.5 million children are served per day in the National School Lunch Program (1). The National School Breakfast Program states that 85% of the schools participating offer "... at least one fruit (fresh, canned, or frozen in fruit juice or light syrup) at breakfast". (2)Only 72% of its schools offer " " at least four non-fried, no-added-sugars fruit or vegetable options daily."(2) Looking at these examples, I think that 100% of the food should be fresh. This might be help reduce the United State's growing obesity issue. 1.http://www.ecoliteracy.org... 2.http://www.gpo.gov...
Should marijuana be legalized

You fail to understand the differences between alcohol and marijuana. True, it doesn't cause physical harm like damage to liver, but it does render the user incapable of anything productive for its duration. One, two, even three drinks for most people, and they can continue work, and proper thought, but marijuana slows a person down mentally. This crucial difference means that it can a much more adverse affect if used improperly. If you plan to legalise it now, and sort out how to control it's use later, it will already be far too late. You have misinterpreted my message. In time, I would support marijuana, but not now. Not yet. And the whole prospect of you growing it in your own house is my very point. How do you stop children from growing a stash? Students in my year already roll cigarettes and smoke during breaks, but they're nothing compared to the stoners already in my year. They're nice people on the whole, but my good marijuana using friend has needed me to give him grinds on several occasions, and I fear he will join his brother who failed the end of year exams and now lives unemployed in the household. There is not enough control already. Legalising it now would open up the option for everyone, and we'd all be far too gone to even notice the agendas you've spoken of. You can give as many speeches about the injustice of society and the rigid viewpoints people have; you need to control this. You can't regulate it like alcohol. It's not something bars can serve, or shops can have, because everyone will just homegrow. Maybe garden centres will sell them. But your final remark about making your own has reminded me of how difficult it is to regulate this. As final rebuttals to your final points; 1; Regulation; It's far too easy to grow at home, which would require household searches,something many would never agree to. 2; Children are finding it easier to get cigarettes every day. The last thing we need is another, apparently safe drug appearing that they can argue is healthy. 3; It's not so much dangerous as debilitating. A bus strike went on in Dublin City, for just mere days, and it costed the city millions in terms of lost production. The lack of commercialisation means that the government will make no money from it, and will lose so much from the slack in work. Weekend bong you called it? 4; Not so much lazy, more unproductive. If you're going to say they build my houses and make my food, then why is there a half built estate in the middle of my town? There's also been a horse meat scandal here too. This is unrelated, but so is the concept that a secret army of stoners runs the world. The numbers of stoners is still smaller than that of non weed users, but I do not accuse them of not working, I say that the overpowering effects of weed limits their produce. You're going to need that regulation before you introduce it, but don't stop now. Make that model. Create those regulations. Put it to the governments and see if you can make it work. Until then, I'll be here,on the half reluctant opposition. Duncan.
Should marijuana be legalized

O.K. so you keep going on about how you think this debate is focusing on the regulation of marijuana. Basically what I have gotten from you is that you do believe that marijuana should be legalized, you are just hung up on how to regulate it. I told you repeatedly that it is a concern but not worth keeping marijuana in prohibition! It would be very easy to figure it out, lets wait and see how Colorado and Washington handles it! You apparently do not want to debate whether or not marijuana should be legalized. You are stuck on a benign issue that is irrelevant to the purpose of this debate. I'm sorry man you wasted 4 rounds repeating the same argument that I tried my darnedest to get you to drop! I was hoping to have a real debate. On the subject I requested but I guess that you wanted to frustrate me instead. Which is weird considering you were the one who convinced me to come back to this website. I guess this sort of conflict is normal when talking about hot button issues. But I invite you to recognize that most hot button issues are a struggle for liberation. It is always an oppressive force that is clearly stronger than the minority that suffers! A very popular issue with marijuana is concern for the children.. Am I the only person that knows that children are getting baked everyday as it is. So lets see.. Here are arguments against marijuana: 1. How to regulate it (I don't know maybe like alcohol) as I said lets wait and see how CO and WA handle it! 2. Children (Already a problem even with prohibition, we need more education not forbidden fruit) 3.It is dangerous (Yeah that's life, get use to it, breathing in some cities is dangerous) 4.Lazy and unproductive (tell that to the millions of stoners that are building your houses and making your food, you can't be a pothead without money) 5. Driving high (If you have been a pothead for 10 years.. not an issue however if someone is driving half the speed limit swerving around pull them over no matter what they are on) So we can all agree then.. Marijuana should in fact be legalized. I await the day I can grow some plants in my house) Cheers!
Should marijuana be legalized

Look, Finalfan, you want to start a one man war with two of the most powerful industries in the world? Me my %^&*ing guest. It's your funeral. You can't use alcohol and cigarettes as an argument for weed like this. I know about the injustice. I did the research too, like you asked me. But I'm not your punching bag. You want to rant about the corruption behind marijuana bans? Make that the title of the debate. I won't be your personal stress ball. Put ti in the forums. Come up with a plan of a safe way to regulate its use. To be honest, the only real reason for the ban is the lack of control over it. That's why I haven't changed my argument for it. I won't argue for any other reason because I don't believe those reasons. I don't believe marijuana causes long term harm. I know about the corruption believe me. There is a way to legalize weed without banning the other substances.You have to remove the level of fear that the government has over it. You have to show how it can be controlled like the drink and tobacco industires. How it can be limited. I won't argue a cause I don't believe in. Maybe in time, with the regulations you can provide, it can be legalized. But we aren't prepared for full, uninhibited use of marijuana yet. A drug that leaves an only temporary but powerful numbing effect can be hard to control, especially if one decides to use more weed while still under its effects. This would lead to full days of unproductivity, which could carry over to workdays. Level with me Finalfan. (Is it supposed to be Final Fantasy of something?) I hope that you and all the other users find the way of lifting the ban in a way that won't totally change society. And I will see you in the next round.Awaiting your response,Duncan.
Should marijuana be legalized

Whoa, whoa whoa, calm down Finalfan. What's with all the shock and threats here? I've done the same research as you, I know what you're talking about. But listen to me; the world isn't ready yet. Just... calm down, come out of the rant, and start talking about what you could do to make the world ready; what regulations if any, how marijuana wouldn't be used irresponsibly. Don't paint me as the enemy. Don't start bringing up random and unrelated topics. You still have time to win the debate, just calm down and bring your big logic guns. Understand that alcohol and cigarettes at least have regulation and control on them. I understand that there is an agenda behind this, but that isn't the debate topic. Why not start that one when this is finished? I don't plan on doing that one since I've seen the evidence, but blind rage like this is only an argument against weed. I'll be waiting. Duncan.
Should marijuana be legalized

Really? Nothing I have said was convincing enough? hmm... Did you read the part where it is an insult to me personally that I am considered too immature to make decisions that only affect my life! The only difference between prohibition and legalization is where the money is going. The black market flourishes while our economy suffers. The government taking advantage of this versatile cash crop seems like a sound investment to me. I do agree that most people are... well.. unevolved which is the least insulting way I can put that! People are downright scary in their "beast" form. But that hardly justifies punishing mature respectful people for the flaws of others! This is no different than people not letting homosexuals get married.. They think they are doing the right thing but really they are oppressing and degrading the people they want to control! Its all about perspective, and I'm sure your familiar with "who do you think you are to tell me what to do if I am not infringing on the rights of others?" Also when you point a finger at someone you are pointing three back at yourself! These are cliche but important for gaining perspective! Another similarity to banning gay marriage is the notion that you have bullies who are attacking people for being different while the victim struggles to keep his/her freedoms from being trampled by ignorant control freaks! So you see why it doesn't cut it in this debate just saying No. In fact you end up resembling every other fascist dictator in history! I will require more effort still to continue this debate.. You must either give me a real reason why I should conceit to your argument or bow out because I have made it clear that I have never seen or heard anyone say anything other than it is dangerous (which we both know is not the case) or that it makes people lazy (which is conjecture) So your next round better have some potent mark twain genius or I will consider this debate a shutout!
Should marijuana be legalized

Make no mistake Finalfan, I have nothing against marijuana users, I even have a few friends who use it and most of them are still smart company. I also accept that there are corporations and politicians who would oppose it and there is a political agenda at work here. However, my stance on this topic is no. Not yet. Most countries are not ready for it. They are not responsible enough to regulate it properly. Drink and cigarettes are legal and harmful, but they do have laws and taxes. Until the world is mature enough to control its usage, marijuana would be too risky a hazard in society, and until that control is installed or at least planned, the answer will remain no. It is good to see you returning to debating since there are so few good debates available as of recent (I have sworn off Shakuntala's debates) and it is always fun to debate with the more articulate of the site. Make no mistake of my character, i have nothing against marijuana and I do not irrationally hate it. All I think is that the change must be gradual and slow. Until then, I await your next response, Duncan.
Should marijuana be legalized

Ah, Finalfan! So glad to see you return! Now, I demand no sources for your belief in the hidden agenda, as I do suspect the idea true. However, there is another reason why marijuana should not be legalized. The problem is enforcement. I don't know what your opinion on gun legislation is, but if America were to ban guns, the problem would be enforcement. How would you confiscate the guns? Et cetera. If marijuana was to be legalized, it would have to be regulated. How would you prevent people from home growing? How would weed usage on weekends affect work produce? The argument that no harmful effects are present would lead to overuse, and while the user could always stop if they wanted to, the argument that it is not harmful means they would have no incentive to stop. I admit that weed is less addictive and harmful than alcohol or other drugs, but your arguments seem more like reasoning to ban or limit alcohol and cigarettes. The reason we cannot remove what is already rooted, such as guns and alcohol, because the population would resist it, violently. Perhaps if some plan or model for its introduction was devised, it may become a reality, but without proper limits, or even with them, the temporary intelligence detriments would inhibit schoolwork and productivity in workplaces. For this reason, I cannot support marijuana, even with the possibilities of hidden agendas. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Should marijuana be legalized

Pick your battles" "To each their own" "lesser of two evils" "Nothing is ever good nor bad but thinking makes it so"-William Shakespeare Just a few quotes to illustrate the theme of this debate. I want to begin with a list of activities I believe are more harmful than smoking marijuana (I will leave drugs and alcohol off this list and will set aside obvious dangers like smoking cigarettes and drinking energy drinks) 1.Driving a motor vehicle (including motorcycles and ATV's) 2.Swimming ( including all water related activities) 3. Sports (excluding non violent sports)) 4. Extreme activities (Rock climbing, Hiking, Camping, Hang gliding, bungee jumping) 5. Leaving your front door (You get the picture) These are just a few vague examples that prove that people have the right to choose dangerous activities. If someone tried to make football illegal, there would be a lot of people wondering what gives you the right to take it away even though it is dangerous! Should we stop people from camping even though we see bear attacks in the paper? So I think we can agree that the "dangers of marijuana" is not the real reason why it is illegal! I recently saw a video on youtube that promoted marijuana as an alternative for alcohol.. I got excited because it made a lot of sense. I am IMHO a very observant person. In my 31 years I have seen a lot of scary people.. that were drunk. I read about drunk driving accidents all the time and have always felt that alcohol was a terrible menace to society but tramples our lives with impunity due to its impenetrable nature (we all know prohibition was a joke). The thought that you could have an alternative to escape the horrifying consequences of alcohol being the only outlet for people to unwind should get everyones attention. Lets face it the prohibition of marijuana is going worse that the prohibition of alcohol did, especially because it has be going on for so long. So much money has been siphoned into the war on marijuana and our taxes pay for the legal process including incarceration for some. But people are still using it every day and anyone can get it if they want. So I don't really see wasting money that we technically don't have to stop something that can be used to generate a massive income.. sounds fishy to me.. The argument that we don't want our children to smoke it and we don't want students to fail is negated by the fact that it would be illegal for them to have it anyways so they found it illegally which is no different than what happens with prohibition! I will need more arguments from you to continue this debate proper. I really do want to know the real answer to why it is illegal. I know why it became illegal in the 70's but I do not know why it is still today. I leave this with a very reasonable conspiracy.. Some one is making money here.. plain and simple, there is a hidden agenda that involves power and wealth.. but I have no sources to back that up :)
Same Sex Marriage

As I've said before, homosexual couples can raise children through adoption, a method that marriage - heterosexual or homosexual - supports. This completely invalidates your argument that marriage is built "toward the procreation and education of children." To further that statement, remember that a heterosexual couple - likely married, gave up those children in order to support the education of their children. As far as "the unity and wellbeing of the spouses" (which should be spelled "well being") goes, homosexual marriage does exactly that. Two people in love with one another are legally united and are happy to be with each other "till death do [them] part." Even you yourself said that homosexual marriage "propose[s] the union between two men or two women" even though you previously said that "marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman ... ordered toward the ... unity ... of the spouses." By saying that homosexual marriage denies the union of two spouses, then stating that it does, completely nullifies your argument. I've said this once and I'll say it again: despite what you continue to say, marriage is not directly correlated with sexual intercourse or the raising of children, although it does support it. Marriage is, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law" OR "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage." This means that by literal definition, both heterosexual and homosexual marriage are the same, in juxtaposition to what you claim.
Same Sex Marriage

Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing.
Same Sex Marriage

Are you, therefore, going to deny those people that gratification simply because they can't have a biological child? Of course not, that's denying them the right to the pursuit of happiness as defined in the Declaration of Independence. If may not be law, but that's part of the goal of the US government (just using the US as an example). Now look at that key word: biological. Children can be raised by gay couples through adoption, and it's been done before - a lot. Another thing is that you keep relating "true marriage" to sexual intercourse - true marriage is just a legal bond between two or more people by law. It has absolutely nothing to do with intercourse, especially considering that you can have children without being married, and you can be married without children. And here's another thing: homosexuality came to be due to a genetic mutation - some bases got flipped around, and people became more attracted to the same gender. If you ban same sex marriage, you might as well ban every other genetic mutation as well, or maybe you'll ban Down syndrome along with it, as that's a trisomy in chromosome 21 - unnatural. But do you know what banning those two things, namely the former, would mean? You'd have to create a genocide for every living creature on Earth. Are you going to do that? Of course not - it's stupid! My point is, banning same sex marriage is, in the simplest of terms, asinine.
Same Sex Marriage

One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children"all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents. This aids in perpetuating the nation and strengthening society, an evident interest of the State. Homosexual "marriage" does not provide such conditions. Its primary purpose, objectively speaking, is the personal gratification of two individuals whose union is sterile by nature. It is not entitled, therefore, to the protection the State extends to true marriage.
Same Sex Marriage

The point of that argument is not to say that same-sex marriage and racial equality are equal topics, but that they are similar in essence - the racial equality supporters wanted to say that everyone is a person with certain unalienable rights, as defined in the Declaration of Independence (not that they specifically said those words). Same-sex marriage supporters are saying the same thing - that whether or not you are a homosexual, you are still a person who has a right to marry the person you love. And does same-sex marriage "oppose nature" by having two individuals marry who cannot participate in intercourse with one another? I suppose in a way it does, but do you know what else opposes nature? Industrialization. The ozone layer of Earth's atmosphere protects its neighboring creatures from deadly UV rays, and that's really great. There's a problem though: when humans came around, eventually we got to industrialization, which is destroying the ozone layer bit by bit. Are you going to go around rioting about destruction of the ozone layer? No - after all, the machines pumping out greenhouse gasses are the things that made the materials for the forenamed riot. Plus, same-sex marriage just says that a few given people can't have kids. OK, whatever. Industrialization, however, is putting thousands upon thousands of species lives' on the line. After all of that, same-sex marriage is an issue? Of course not - it's just a change in human society as we know it, bringing people closer to a state of complete equality. I guess it really boils down to this: a person's opinion on this kind of subject isn't based on the details of said subject. Rather, it's based on whether or not that individual is prepared for a changing world for the future. The people who support homosexual marriage are simply people who are not only ready for these changes, but the catalysts for them - and that's just beautiful.