BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Medicle Marijuana

"It has been proven that marijuana can be used for medicle purposes. Well if it can be used to benifit a persons health then they should be able to use." I will admit that marijuana has medicinal properties. That being said, every problem that marijuana helps to treat already has multiple LEGAL treatments that are more effective. Take glaucoma for example. Medical marijuana, when it was legal, was primarily used to treat this. However, glaucoma is now treated by latanoprost, bimatoprost, timolol, and epinephrine, just to name a few. Furthermore, scientists have suceeded in synthetically producing the ingredients in the marijuana plant that give it its medicinal properties. I would think that using this would be highly preferable to unnecessarily altering your brain chemistry. Unless, of course, the patient is using marijuana primarily to get high.
Medicle Marijuana

It has been proven that marijuana can be used for medicle purposes. Well if it can be used to benifit a persons health then they should be able to use. Now it's not like somebody says hey lets go to the doctor and get some drugs. No marijuana can just be given away. The doctor has to have a valid reason as to why they need to use marijuana. And, the doctor has to notify his advisors of his actions. Therefore marijuana should be used for medical uses.
DC Comics (and all subsequently owned branches of it) is much better than Marvel Comics

In conclusion, I would just like to state that DC Comics has stood the test of time, and has revolutionized comics with a mixture of brilliant older franchises and innovative new additions. Such divisions as Vertigo, Cliffhanger, and MAD Magazine only sweeten the package. Marvel comics has done little as of late to change the way we see comics, and to be frank, they only rely on existing franchises. Honestly, who wants to read "Agent X"? Not me. And "Spiderman 3"? That was comically bad, except for the french restaurant scene. And as that was totally un-comic book related, no points for that. Rest in Peace.
DC Comics (and all subsequently owned branches of it) is much better than Marvel Comics

Now, now. You don't believe everything you read in the paper, do you? "Better" does not equal "more succesful." Due to the fact that it is the Google Financier, (hint hint "Financier") I don't think that they're actually judging them based on QUALITY of comics, more than the financial success. Personally, I'd say that DC's biggest asset is Veritgo, which is the creator of several award winning comics such as "Fables" and "Hellblazer". These darker, grittier comics are more appealing and deep than the candy-coated world that Marvel lives in. No matter how awesome Spiderman is, he lacks the realism and inner turmoil of Vertigo characters. And consider "Cliffhanger" comics, a branch of DC. Look no further for funny, unique, and outright bizarre characters by Sam Kieth. There is no way that any Marvel comic can compare to "The Maxx", a tale of a demented homeless man convinced that he's a superhero, whiel actually being a powerful deity/warrior in an alternate reality Australia. When it comes to original and interesting comics, Marvel falls sadly short and relies on its several popular franchises to chug along in existence. Case closed, my dear Watson.
DC Comics (and all subsequently owned branches of it) is much better than Marvel Comics

DC comics has been around a long time. Through countless wars and chaos they've stood strong, and their characters have inspired and given hope to America that there will be sun after the storm. They've created rich characters, deep mythologies, and fascinating stories that still stand out in a sea of mediocre comics. I am NOT calling Marvel mediocre. On the contrary, they have created some of the best characters in the industry. I am simpyl stating that character-for-character, comic-for-comic, DC is the superior publisher of superior comics. Prove me wrong, my rival.
chad johnson is better than dwayne bowe

Seems like you do not believe in Mr. Johnson too much. In addition to the fact that Dwayne Bowe has produced more in his rookie season on a team that is far worse off then the team Johnson went to Johnson has been more of a distraction then a weapon. He has had attitude issues since college. He spends more time celebrating routine one yard touchdowns than practicing. Bowe is destined for greatness and Johnson unlike his lame celebration early in the year will not be in the hall of fame.
chad johnson is better than dwayne bowe

I am a Chiefs fan was raised near KC, despite that I will not let my team affiliation effect my judgement. Chad Johnson received a lot of hype coming out of college due to the fact that he is Cousin with Keyshawn Johnson. You stated that Johnson is faster that Bowe, I beg to differ Bowe had a 4.40 in the 40 and after his combine they stated he was the second best Reciever in the draft behind Calvin Johnson. Chad Johnson clocked in at 4.57 and according to ESPN he had a very poor combine score. Link to this site to investigate for yourself http://espn.go.com.... We must remember Bowe is a rookie on a team that has played with 3 quarterbacks this season and has lost Eddie Kennision the only other mentionable Wide Receiver on the team will ofcourse Tony Gonzales is talented but he is a Tight End. Chad Johnson Rookie Year 28 Rec 329 Yards 1TD Dwayne Bowe Rookie Year 54 Rec 786 Yards 4TD you must remember Bowe leads all rookie receivers and these stats are through 12 games not an entire 16 game season.
single sex education is good for students

Thank you for your answer, Aiko!!! According to researchers, in single sex schools students feel free and do not shame show their ideas or something like that. Everybody know that often girls shame to show or present their works near the boys. So, they lose opportunity to improve their education. In single sex schools, it is rarity and almost all students do not shame to show their cognitions. It really increases levels of education. Certainly, I do not excluse that double sex schools show good results but not all students can show it. For example: in turkish schools almost all students show good results, it surely approves that single sex schools are better than doble sex schools. According to researchers, in single sex schools occur accidents less than in simple schools. It makes sure the security of children. According to student who attend only girls` school, she improves her levels of confidence and also start to show best results in math. Single sex schools give opportunity not only improve knowledge and also provides with security of students. It is the best way of education.
single sex education is good for students

Thank you for the answer, Nasihat. Those easy going girls, might become pregnant even when they are studying in single sex school, and those, who study hard, and want to achieve better results in educational sphere, may reach their aim without studying separately from opposite gender. I don't think that boys and girls can disturb each other while studying. It depends on student himself. Even in single sex schools girls can disturb each other by talking,or boys may argue, have fights etc. Yes, I admit that Kazakh-turkish lyceums have better results. But for example Petropavl kazakh-turkish school is mixed sex school, and this year they showed one of the best results in KZ in UNT, comparing with other lyceums where boys and girls are taught separately, their results were much better.
single sex education is good for students

Thanks, for your invitation to debate !!! I consider that single sex education is good for students for some reasons. Firstly, single sex education decrease risk of early pregnancy. There are so many cases, when girls become mothers during school years. It is pity fact and mostly cases it occurs in double schools. Secondly, single sex schools have opportunity to students to concentrate all attention only to study without any disturbing elements like . As everybody know, espesially boys can not concentrate on work when girls attend class. It really disturbs them to make success in study. Our country has also singe sex schools like Turkish lyc"e. I think that everybody know, that most of Turkish lycee get excelent education from it. It really approves my words. Thirdly, single sex schools decrease risk of distribution HIV. I think that firstly we should think about security and health of our children. The last reason, It improves progress of children in study.
single sex education is good for students

there is no differences in education between single and double sex schools. Education is given same in both schools, and for those who study, it doesn't matter with whom he or she will study, However, in single sex schools he or she may become more shy, unconfident, and isolated from society.He or she might have problems in talking to the opposite gender. According to the National association of single sex public education (NASSPE), "just putting girls in one room, and boys in another is no guarantee of success." Furthermore, in single sex schools students often do not look after themselves good enough, because there is noone for whom you must look beautiful. But in double sex schools, you try to look beautiful everyday and it develop your inner beauty and also maybe creativity.
Congress should've passed the Dream Act.

First of all I would like to point out that my opponent has no offence in her case what so ever so clearly she loses the round by default. To begin I would like to restate the definition of the Dream Bill, "The Dream Act is a bill that would provide certain illegal and deport able alien students who graduate from US high schools, who are of good moral character, arrived in the U.S. illegally as minors, and have been in the country continuously and illegally for at least five years prior to the bill's enactment, the opportunity to earn conditional permanent residency if they complete two years in the military or two years at a four year institution of higher learning. The students would obtain temporary residency for a six year period." In the definition it clearly states that we need to reward alien students who are of good moral character. What makes this good moral character, how can you judge a good character. Is there a scale of "good" or "bad" characters, please explain this to me. Now moving on to my opponent's refutations to my case; 1.My opponent repeats that the crime is being committed by the parents not the kids. However allowing these kids to stay and receive the citizenship that they don't deserve, also allows their parents to stay, which is rewarding criminals. No we are not giving citizenship to their parents, but we are letting them stay in America when they don't deserve to. Illegally immigrating into America is a crime, and allowing these people to stay because they gave birth to their children here is a reward to this crime that they have committed. 2.My opponent once again brings up that rewarding their parents would be rewarding criminal activity. However as I stated before, by allowing these parents to stay is rewarding them. My opponent says that we are going to be punishing innocent children who were not a part of the crime. However sending them back to their home, where they should be not illegally immigrated in our country is not punishment. These "innocent kids" are too young to realize what is going on; if we deport them home it will not make a difference to them.
Congress should've passed the Dream Act.

1. "The dream act provides....citizenship for illegal alien children smuggled....by their illegal parents." These illegal children were brought here because of their parents, a fault not their own, so Con arguing that "allowing illegal alien children is outrageous" is not outrageous at all. That statement might be true if congress was granting citizenship freely to the parents or anyone else with no conditions, but that isn't the case for the Dream Act. These children would have to work hard to earn their citizenship and just like "people who immigrate legally have to wait years" so will they. Also, it doesn't "place them ahead of American students" by any means. Schools are interested in their academics and such, not their nationality, so if an American student is "behind" an illegal student, the fault goes to the lack of potential or motivation of the individual. 2. "The Dream Act rewards criminal activity." That statement is untrue. Rewarding the PARENTS would be rewarding criminal activity since it was they who committed the crime, not the kids. Con argues that the Dream Act would reward instead of punish. Well, are we going to punish the innocent children who had nothing to do with the "crime" ?? That would be unfair of America. It is like saying that the child who acquires AIDS from the prostitute parent is also a prostitute, and if we are going to punish the prostitute, might as well punish the kid. America ignores the fact that immigration exists by rejecting bills like the Dream Act. Instead of America helping reduce the number of illegals here, it just ignores the fact that we have them, and does nothing about it. Passing bills that are not so important like the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is further proof of this point. America should instead fix the broken system that is way too expensive and takes way too much time. THAT would encourage people to come to America the legal way. It is unreasonable to say "deport them all." Not only is our national debt around 14. trillion so we have no money to waste, but we would be breaking up families. Many of those illegal children are potential professionals a step away from their profession. And what keeps them away? The lack of a social security. These people want to be part of America. They were brought up as Americans, think like Americans, and act like Americans. Many times their only language is English. So if we deport them, we are taking everything they consider their home. Congress needs to do something about this dilemma, and passing the Dream Act would've been a big progress step for America!
Congress should've passed the Dream Act.

Congress reapealed the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' yet didn't pass the Dream Act. When your goal is to better America, yet your actions are like the ones just mentioned, it becomes hard to believe that Cognress truly has America's best interest in mind. Clearly immigration is a problem that's not going away, and since Congress was unfair by not passing the Dream Act, it just prolonged the dilemma.
Congress should've passed the Dream Act.

Moving on I would like to begin with refuting my opponents "offence" "Congress was unfair by not passing the Dream Act" is a completely untrue statement. However if congress had passed the Dream Act that would have been the unfair thing. As I stated in my case, the Dream Act gives countless privileges to illegal immigrants who don't deserve them. When legal American citizens already have to pay taxes why should we give rights and privileges to people who merely do not deserve them. My opponent says that we should punish the parents not the kids, however as I stated in my previous case, allowing the kids to stay also allows the parents to stay which is a reward for them. Now to furthermore defend my side of today's argument. My opponents keeps bringing up if it's better for America to awards someone unjustly or for America to punish someone, however we are not unjustly punishing anyone. These people immigrated here illegally. Anything that is illegal has to be punished because of the mere fact that it is illegal. The definition of illegal is, "forbidden by law or statute, contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc. " By law and definition, something that is illegal has to be punished because it is illegal. My opponent saying that America will be punishing these people unjustly is compeletly false. In reality if the Dream Act had been past, that would have been the unjust thing. As i stated many times in my case, illegal immigrants are just that, illegal and they need to be punished not rewarded for their wrong doing.
Congress should've passed the Dream Act.

Thanks for your reply. My offence was clearly mentioned. My opponent offered no refutations. My opponent asked what made a good character. According to Ethics, when someone constantly does wrong, but one time does something good, it doesn't make him a 'good' person since he was generally bad. And if someone constantly does good, and one time does something bad, it doesn't make him a 'bad' person since he was generally good. With the bill, as soon as they apply, they would be watched in their behaviors. Good moral character would mean, no felonies, no crimes, keeping up with the requirements of the bill and so on. It isn't difficult to understand. 1. My opponents stating that "allowing these people to stay because they gave birth to their children here is a reward.." is an incorrect statement since we are talking about illegal children and not American citizens born of immigrants. Is it better for America to award someone unjustly or for America to punish someone unjustly? 2. My opponent does not seem to understand the bill. We are talking about all those kids who are graduating, who have graduated, or who are about to graduate, so when my opponent argues that they are too young to realize what is going on, the statement proves false. Not only are they well aware of what is going on, but they will be deported to a strange land. What they know as their home is America, the only difference is that they were not assigned social securities. Once again, my opponent offered no refutations to my case. It is unfair for America to ignore the issue, and we cannot deport them all so we need to do something about our problem with immigration. Once again, the Dream Act should have been passed. Thank you for debating this issue.
should teachers carry fire arms

Do you really think teachers will shoot their own students you said earlier that teachers could "accidentally," shoot themselves in the face, how many police officers shoot themselves, guns just don't go off randomly, with response time being 2-3 minutes the shooter could do a lot of damage with teachers having guns it is more of a precaution, the shooters are targeting helpless places. Like you hinted at earlier if a gun goes off by itself than cars drive drunk and pencils misspell words. With proper training on how to control a gun, teachers can protect their students safely.
should teachers carry fire arms

in an earlier statement you said Which is better, more unneeded casualties or less unneeded casualties? 197 people have been killed in school shooting according to http://www.statisticbrain.com... according to http://nyagv.org... in the years 2005-2010 there were 3800 accidental shootings so why have even more unneeded casualties if teachers are allowed to have guns this 3800 in five years will end up skyrocketing and innocent children will die by the hands of there teachers
should teachers carry fire arms

Let me ask you something. If there was a shooting in any school, what are the chances that you would use a bat or mace to get the shooter and live? If teachers thought that way, which they would because their only human, what are the chances that they would take action? We distinctively think about the negatives each time a situation like that occurs, but wouldn't a teacher take more action with a firearm? Even if they do use a bat or mace, they would probably get shot, and there would probably be even more casualties then with a firearm because with a firearm though, the shooter would be the one who gets shot. So I ask you this: Which is better, more unneeded casualties or less unneeded casualties?
Slavery can be justified

We agreed to tie this debate. Please do not vote But I would like to point out the definitions are inconsistent. Pro says ""Act of owning slaves". Then he says were are not discussing legal ownership. Well I don't see how you can both own and not own someone. False by law of contradicition.His examples seem to exemplify codependency and indentured servitude, not slavery.Also I don't think you can justify owning someone through consequentialism or deontology.Also, the notion that your right until being proved wrong is false. It's actually that you're wrong until being proved right. Refer to the Noll Hypothesis.I hope ChosenWolff and I can debate this interesting topic in the future.
Slavery can be justified

I will attempt to prove that "slavery can be justified". Slavery will be defined as the "Act of owning slaves". A slave will be defined as a " a person who is excessively dependent upon or controlled by something". I am taking this unpopular position to test an unpopular argument. This debate doesn't reflect my views. It is done for the purpose of discussion and higher understanding. R4 will be a "no round" unless I decide to extend it. Note: My position wont be based on race or social class slavery (per say). . http://www.youtube.com...;
Tell Me what you would Say (evolutionists only)

"You refused to explain why you call evolution fact"But I did. I stated evidence and it should be clear from there that I analyzed the evidence, circumstances and knowledge. This lead me to believe that evolution is truth. How am I a hypocrite in my proof of evolution? Just because you agree with the things he thinks isn't proof of his existence. I think that a pink horn looks best and so does my unicorn. My unicorn? Oh ya, only I can see him and you can't proof he doesn't exist and because I agree with his opinions he is real. This logic makes no sense, you are saying "god is real because god is real", it's a circular argument.God is good? GOD IS GOOD? If he is good than why is there evil. The wise Greek philosopher, Epicurus, once said: "Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil.Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?"Please try respond and reason with this quote without using circular arguments.