BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
medical marijuana

Hey there. I'm having a little trouble understanding...are you just against smoked medical marijuana? or medical marijuana as a whole? I'll argue for both. Medical Marijuana. Period. You said yourself, THC has health benefits. It causes hunger in cancer and eating disorder patients, dulls pain in patients experiencing it, and actually GROWS brain cells! (crazy, right?). Marijuana can be ingested for these effects in many ways, INCLUDING pills and edibles, and a doctor would prescribe a patient the best way for THEM to take it. Obviously, no lung cancer patient will be smoking weed to get better. I feel I don't need to argue this too much, because you brought up good points already yourself, so let's get to the main event. Smoked Marijuana Alright I'm gonna break down your argument here. You're right, all smoke is harmful. HOWEVER, Marijuana smoke is far less harmful than cigarette smoke, due to its lack of chemicals and the fact that marijuana is smoked far less than cigarettes because less is needed for its effects. Further more, the helpful effects of smoking marijuana FAR outweigh the hurtful effects, so you're wrong about people being "tricked" into thinking it will help them when it will only hurt them. I read about a study done where a hand full of people volunteered to smoke marijuana everyday to see how long it took for the weed to effect their lungs. The result? it was 10 YEARS before any lung function began to decline. Here's the article: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com... just because something has cons doesn't mean there's no pros. I mean, Oxicodone isn't very good for you either, but it is a commonly prescribed pain medication. People can overdose on all kinds of legal prescription meds, but you CAN'T overdose on marijuana. As far as your second hand smoke argument, It's not like a cancer patient is gonna be smoking weed watching TV with their kids, they'd be smoking it in a private environment, probably a hospital, where no others would be harmed. In conclusion, your argument has tons of flaws, but I happily await your rebuttal.
medical marijuana

this is a debate on the promotion of marijuana for medicinal usage. claims of marijuana's medical benefits are dangerously misleading in a way that mirrors classic cigarette ads in which doctors would speak of the health benefits of cigarettes. we now all know how silly this claim is because all smoke is harmful no matter what kind of smoke it is. all you have to do to prove this is blow pot smoke directly into a white napkin and if done right, you will see brown residue left behind. its time to stop this cliche lie that smoking is not bad for you. if you want to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes, fine but dont mislead people into thinking that it will help their illness, when it will only hurt them, that is just wrong. medical marijuana has taken the place of snake oil remedies that scam artists used to sell on the street by falsely advertising it as a cure all. im not denying that the chemicals in marijuana such as THC may have benefits, but selling the actual plant its self to be smoked is absurd. no other medicinal drug is smoked for obvious reasons, which shows us how much of a joke medical marijuana is. people who want smoked medical marijuana are a discredit to people who actually need the benefits of the the drug. these people would be more than happy to take the plant in pill or liquid form, but the ones who refuse to take it in pill form are just looking to get high and want the cool factor of the smoke. some people who think they need the drug for medicinal purposes are actually just abusing it, because someone might also believe that a few shots of alcohol in the morning also makes them feel better, but we aren't calling alcohol an alternative medicine. another problem with smoked medical marijuana is that others can inhale the 2nd hand smoke which is unhealthy and may involuntarily impair them. no other medicinal drug has this problem, and tricking people into believing that smoked marijuana will help them is just as bad as making the same claim for alcohol or tobacco. also, i understand that you can cook with/ eat marijuana which is better for you but when you sell the plant its self, theres no way to stop people from smoking it. it also allows them to grow it, which wouldnt benefit society with tax revenue. especially because you can literally grow marijuana in a closet and no one would ever know if you bought the weed youre smoking or if you grew it. in conclusion, if you want to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes, thats one thing but dont call it a medicine.
Carbon Tax

Climate changeThere really isn't much to argue with here. The existence of climate change is actually moot to the idea of a carbon tax. The carbon tax can be done with or without global warming; the real question is whether or not it actually helps, which I already established it doesn't. Moreover, the last paragraph of this section is essentially moot with the result of the 2016 election. Nuclear energyAgain, I don't see the relation here between nuclear energy and a carbon tax. I cede that nuclear energy is great, but how is that relevent? EconomyMost of these arguments are covered in my opening round. With respect to my opponent, I'll give him an opportunity to rebut them rather than reiterate my points.
Carbon Tax

I look forward to a great debate! I hold that the USFG should not institute a carbon tax. I will aim to explain why. Contention 1 - A carbon tax hurts the poorAccording to a study by the liberal Tax Policy Center (TPC), a carbon tax would be regressive, placing a large burden on the poor. [1] The reason for this is simple: carbon taxes greatly increase the cost of consumer goods and energy. [2] In fact, this is the entire purpose of a carbon tax: to raise the price of energy to the point companies have to use other, more expensive types. [2] While the rich urbanites who propose a carbon tax would be able to afford this, the single mother living in a big city - which already has a high cost of living - would not. Why should we drastically increase the cost of living to the point it hurts the poor? The answer is we shouldn't. Contention 2 - A carbon tax hurts rural communitiesCarbon taxes also have a very negative impact on rural communities; because the carbon tax equally raises the price of goods for everyone, that means everyone has to pay more. [2] This would be disastorous for rural communities, raising the cost of transportation drastically. Carbon taxes in British Columbia hurt the agriculture, manufacturing, and resource sectors hardest - and these are the most common industries in rural areas. [3] This isn't even counting the massive increase in energy cost that carbon taxes require. Simply put: a carbon tax is inherently harmful to rural areas. Contention 3 - A carbon tax hurts the economyCarbon taxes would be detrimental to American competitiveness economically. [4] The manufacturing industry would be substantially harmed, because the advantage in the cost of energy - currently lower than the European Union - would be lost. This would cause jobs to be lost and prices to rise. [4] While my opponent might claim this would be made up for by new jobs in clean energy, the fact of the matter is that these jobs simply don't exist. [5] By design, economic output would have to decline. Contention 4 - A carbon tax doesn't help the environmentIf the United States were to completely halt any carbon emissions, the emmissions would be replaced by the rest of the world in just eight years. [5] As the global population rises, the impact of any American action is minimial - and if anything, it could actually hurt the environment in the long run. Companies could easily move their manufacturing jobs to countries like China or India, which have far fewer environmental regulations. [4] In fact, China and India refuse to harm their economy by passing environmental regulations. [5] There is little reason for a manufacturer to remain in the United States, make less money, and be placed at a disadvantage to their competition. References:1. . http://dailycaller.com...2. . http://americanenergyalliance.org...3. . http://globalnews.ca...4. . http://americanenergyalliance.org...5. . http://instituteforenergyresearch.org...
Should we have homework

I have a feeling this is going to be a complete forfeit so Ill give just a basic argument and not waste anyones time. Homework is how students learn the material taught to them at school because as the old saying goes, practice makes perfection. Without homework schools would become just giant lecture halls and students would lose any incentive to pay attention or even show up to class. Homework isnt given in order to fit in with your schedule, its meant to help you learn, and being stressful isnt an acceptable excuse for getting rid of it.
God is Black*

I have to say that I'm impressed. You're beginning to argue in a more rational manner. However, I should imagine it's difficult to find justification for many of your ideas in mainstream Islam, e.g. "everything in creation is dependant [sic] upon the womb of the BLACK woman." Qur'anic Arabic is indeed very beautiful. I've had the pleasure of hearing it recited in many places on this Earth. And, as a speaker of Arabic, I will indeed be looking to the Qur'an "for details." سلام
God is Black*

I am indeed a Muslim. And your "suspicion" is full of arrogance and misunderstanding of Islam. The quote itself was not condemned. Your reason and logic for selecting that quote in defiance was condemned. The Quran was revealed, recited, and written by God in the most technical, non-ambiguous language on this Earth. The "keys to the universe" is understanding. Language proceeds understanding. Therefore, the Bismillah is but one of many "keys" to "unlocking" the universe (and every one before and after) from which God created. Your "inability" to keep up with my "ravings" result, once again, from arrogance and misinformation, and thus misunderstanding. The only "wit" you've displayed here deserves an e at the end. See the Quran for details لا إله إلا الله
God is Black*

You claimed that "the Blackman and Blackwoman are God in its Supreme Condensation." I wittily replied that it depends on the woman. I'm finding it difficult to keep up with your ravings: "Black Gods...Allah...racism"? Now, if you are a Muslim, then my quoting from the Qur'an could not possibly be viewed as blasphemy. If you are not a Muslim, which I suspect is indeed the case, then stop quoting the bismillah as if it's the key with which you can unlock the secrets of the universe.
God is Black*

You say: "Depending on the woman, of course." But everything in creation is dependant upon the womb of the BLACK woman. That creation is initiated by the BLACK man, as Black (representing all possibilities of creation) is the true nature of God. Which brings me to your next statement: "Your nonsense about their being "Fathers and Mothers of all events" in no way follows from the bismillah." The "Bismillah" follows the "Fathers and Mothers of all events" whom are Black Gods. God names his/her creations before hand, hence the meaning of Bismillah (With the name of Allah). Since all names come from Allah, whom is God, and whom is Black, then my statement makes perfect "sense". Your "conclusion" has been well noted in history as blasphemy (later coined as racism). God can only "worship" his/her representation, and since you "do not worship what I worship" then you do not worship God. Anything that does not worship God will ultimately defy God. لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللهُ
God is Black*

I might agree with you, in the case of the Blackwoman. Depending on the woman, of course. Your nonsense about their being "Fathers and Mothers of all events" in no way follows from the bismillah. I wish to conclude with my favourite passage from the Qur'an, Q 109:2 (لَا أَعْبُدُ مَا تَعْبُدُونَ): "I do not worship what you worship."
This House Would implement aggressive screening and quarantines to prevent disease transmission

Even if we are to reduce the scope of screening to just the US you still miss several important points. Furthermore you did not specify just the US. First this is a utilitarian debate which argues what is the most good for the most people. By limiting the debate to only the US you are ignoring what is good for the rest of the world, especially that of the truly effected nations in Africa. If all human beings are equal you can not limit the scope of this global crisis to the US. If "good" is to be defined as eradicating Ebola and stopping its spread then keeping the debate to just the US ignores the international context in which this crisis is happening. If we do not solve the crisis at its source then there will always be a looming threat of Ebola in the US. Saying that we should spend more resources on screening than we already do takes away from the true goal of solving the crisis. You wish US policy to treat the symptoms not the disease. But fine, if you want to keep this a US debate then lets look at the current status quo and ask if more precaution is needed. How many American cases of Ebola have been diagnosed in the US? Four [4]. And of those 3 were hospital staff infected by the visitor who was being treated in quarantine. Tell me, with such a small number of US born infections how would increased screening prevent a problem that does not exist? If we were to increase inspection beyond what is done now I again refer to my point made in Round One, the second paragraph in "Is Screening Worth it?" Most flights to the US from West Africa are not direct. Unless you're willing to inspect 363 million people who have come in contact with African passengers your plan with not be addressing the problem in an aggressive manner. You say you want increased screening at ports, however under current levels of precaution "Ebola has never been transmitted by international shipping."[3]. How would increased precaution solve a problem that does not exist? Under current monitoring conditions there has been no outbreak, everything has been controlled. There is no need for extra scrutiny. Your plan does not add teeth to the current practices; it would over burden the current procedures. You would be putting too many teeth and the program would choke on its own ineptitude. You say we must prevent carriers from entering at all costs, this is not a utilitarian point. If the cost is too great, as I argue, then it can hurt more people than it helps. [3] http://www.joc.com... [4] http://www.cdc.gov...
This House Would implement aggressive screening and quarantines to prevent disease transmission

To clarify some things that might have been unclear, "aggressive screening" would be done at all points of entry (ex: Airports, harbors, land borders). This would be done in the United States. To answer the question what kind of tests, customs officials and medical examiners will take blood work, look at travel history, take temperature, and ask general questions about their whereabouts. Yes, we do have enough trained medical personnel and technology to staff these facilities in the United States. The rest of the "Logistics of the Operation" is invalid because we are not debating third-world countries, only the United States. Also, If one's travel history shows that that person has been to a non-effected country, then examiners will be more lenient in their testing, however, if that person has been to let's say Sierra Leone, more careful measures will be taken. Returning to the Utilitarianism, side government/affirmative says that this is worth it. We already have screening measures in place, meaning adding "teeth" to the status quo, so to speak, won't cost as much as it would by creating an entire new system. If we are to keep the United States Ebola-free, then we must prevent from other carriers of the disease from entering the country at all costs.
This House Would implement aggressive screening and quarantines to prevent disease transmission

NOTE: This is an official Connecticut Debate Association resolution. This is a utilitarian debate. It will do the most good for the most people. Yes, the government will have to spend money and yes, people will have to wait in line. But it's really worth it because one, that it will continue to keep the United States Ebola-free and two, because we can help keep other countries Ebola-free as well with our screening techniques
This House Would implement aggressive screening and quarantines to prevent disease transmission

You offer an argument based on possibility, not probability. As of now it is extremely unlikely that there will be an out break. Current precautions have shown to be effective. There is no evidence to suggest spending that extra money will save lives. There have been only 20 or so cases of Ebola outside of Africa under the status quo. It's hard to say how much extra money would be needed to make the screening system, which already has dubious results, be 100% effective at catching those infected. Your plan implies that 100% safety is possible, which could give a false sense of security. That could be even more deadly than Ebola under the current conditions. There is at the very least a question of diminishing returns. I will end this round with a quote from the Center of Disease Control (CDC) that directly talks to the issue at hand. In the section "Why don't we restrict travel to the US?" they respond "CDC does not recommend stopping travel from countries with Ebola outbreaks. Travel restrictions balance the public health risk to others, the rights of individuals, and the impact of the recommendations on the welfare of the countries with Ebola outbreaks. They are based on the least restrictive means necessary to protect the public's health. The key to controlling this epidemic is to focus on stopping the spread at its source, and international humanitarian assistance must continue." [5] Thank you for the debate. Vote Con. [5] http://www.cdc.gov...
This House Would implement aggressive screening and quarantines to prevent disease transmission

Everything has it's time. Including a major Ebola outbreak in the United States. With this resolution in place, we can drastically reduce the possibility of millions getting infected and possibly more dying. The cost of "beefing-up" screening is not too great to keep out Ebola. What's worth more? Hundreds of lives or a little extra money? It wouldn't burden the current procedures because we already have lines at points of entry that could extend for hours. What's 20 more minutes going to be? I also apologize for not defining the terms in my first argument.
Overpopulation exists and is a problem

By distributing wealth, rearranging our current social power relations, the entire population can be sustained. If the sufficent resources are here to provide for each person, are not exhausted, we are today by necessity neither overpopulated nor out-resourced (even though our current consumption of energy may be unsustainable). And, if we devise ways of consuming less and consuming better then I believe this will solve many of the issues my opponent believes are caused by overpopulation... We are continually adapting and finding solutions to accommodate our needs as a race; over reducing the population, purging against overpopulation, it is through continual human pragmatics that we will be able to further expand and develop as a species.
Communism is the Worst Form of Governance

I am now going to explain why you are horrifically wrong.Communism is the WORST form of governance. So how come it has lasted as long as it has in a lot of countries? You're not reviewing how long communism has had a place in the modern world. Obvious the pro in this situation cannot comprehend how many people have been saved by communism. I wasn't in the ruling class at all, my father is Irish and my mother is Argentine and they have been workers all their lives. Ask yourself why did they immigrate in the first place? Communism is an ideology where the workers do not have a say in anything. You may think you do, but the rulers decide every aspect of any decision and you have no say in what they are. This is so far from the truth, you're making these comments based on the fact that you have never actually lived in a communist state. I, as a worker had quite a sufficient say in which occupation I undertook and voiced an opinion on how things were being operated. The comment could actually be used to refer to capitalism. You're telling me the big boss right at the top will listen to your opinion? I really don't think so. Communism means you are insignificant. You are nothing but a pawn for the State to use in any way it wants. You are basically an ant serving the Queen (the State). You are a mindless drone who must do the bidding of the State. Capitalism is exactly the same my love. Big corporations have exactly the same policy. Communism favors the worker over the boss. Again, your opinion really isn't valid due to your sources, I'm sure.You will live in poverty. There is no reason to work hard, to invent anything, or to improve anything. How can you even justify such a term when communism won the space race and has provided the world with various technologies. China, comes to mind. In addition to that I lived in the same style of housing as I do now in New York. The State is God and the religion is Statism."Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl MarxIf you have a different view and want a market based economy, you will go to jail, as you threaten the State. You cannot exist outside of its paradigm. If you want to be communist in a free market economy, however, you can exist.The United States has such a poor excuse for freedom of speech. If you present such a certain view which doesn't match or correlate the view of the government you are monitored. Watergate.Do you think it is good that everyone is 'equal?' This sounds good at first... but are the lazy, less driven, less intelligent people 'equal' to someone who is a hard worker, driven, and intelligent? Do they both deserve the same things? Does calling them 'equal' benefit human society into the future?Yes, I do. As opposed to the obvious sexism, racism and homophobia in a capitalist society, yes indeed I do.