BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Legalizing Cocaine

you just described almost the exact effects that caffeine have on the body and mind. In the brain, caffeine blocks the areas that receive adenosine, a biochemical compound with sedative effects. As the day wears on, the overworked brain naturally releases more adenosine to slow activity and trigger sleep. But when you take in caffeine, these receptors get blocked, your heart rate speeds up, and you get a jolt of heightened alertness. The caffeine buzz also comes at the expense of the adrenal glands, which are prompted by caffeine to pump out more of the stress hormones norepinephrine, adrenaline, and cortisol. As the adrenal glands become overworked, the daily rhythms of cortisol release are thrown off and we get both lasting fatigue and insomnia. This is how the caffeine habit often backfires: the more you drink, the more it saps your energy. (1) Between 30% and 60% of users combine cocaine with alcohol. This concurrent use is the cause of nearly 3 out of every 4 of cocaine-related fatalities in the U.S., and a cocaine user is 25 times more likely to experience sudden death when combining it with alcohol. (4) 75% due to the combination of the to drugs. If it was really that bad why are there so many medical uses for it? The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Inc. considers cocaine to be a valuable anesthetic and vasoconstricting agent. (2) Cocaine is used by health care professionals to temporarily numb the lining of the mouth, nose, and throat (mucous membranes) before certain medical procedures . It is an anesthetic that works quickly to numb the area about 1-2 minutes after application. Cocaine also causes blood vessels to narrow, an effect that can decrease bleeding and swelling from the procedure. (3) Psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud is one of the more famous proponents of cocaine. After trying the drug for the first time in 1884, he recommended it as a useful treatment for depression, alcoholism, and morphine addiction. (4). I could add more but I would have no more room for the rest of the debate. After cocaine was outlawed in 1914, use of the drug dropped dramatically until it rebounded in the 1960s. By the late 1970s, it was commonly used by middle and upper-middle class Americans and it became known as the drug of the 1970s and 1980s (4). outlawed or not people will still try or continue use of the drug just look at he prohibition days. by making it illegal, it gives people the trill of trying and using it. In the year 2007, nearly 12,000 offenders in the U.S. were sentenced to prison time on cocaine-related charges. More than 95% of the cocaine cases sent to federal courts involved trafficking of the drug. (4) So i guess the other 5% were the violent crimes it causes. * I do not personally believe that Cocaine should be legalized, just to reiterate that. 1. http://www.womentowomen.com... 2. http://www.entnet.org... 3. http://www.medicinenet.com... 4. http://facts.randomhistory.com...
Legalizing Cocaine

C1: effects of cocaine Short term: Energetic, talkative, mentally alert, And euphoric. (1) *small doses only* It would also construct blood veins, dialate pupils, increase heart rate (risk of heart attack), and lead to violent behaviors. (1) Effects on brain: "This initial high is followed by bouts of severe anxiety, paranoia, and depression" (2) It also messes with normal brain communication by blocking the dopamine from being recycled. (3) causing build up etc. It also changes the reward effect of your brain and causes tolerance to the drug, so users up the dosage then get worse effects. (3) Effects on body: It can cause Gastrointestiomal problems and many headaches. (3) if snorted causes nosebleeds and loss of smell. (3) It also can cause seizures Posible death by cardiac arrest. (4) Usibg it long term will make you aggressive, paranoid, and anxious. (4) Some cocaine may melt the skin and ruin the immune system. (5) (6) Cocaine is bad man. C2: legalization would raise users. "It's clear from history that periods of lax controls are accompanied by more drug abuse and that periods of tight controls are accompanied by less drug abuse." (7) "For example, a 1994 article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that it was probable, that if cocaine were legalized, the number of cocaine addicts in America would increase from 2 million to at least 20 million." (8) C3: addictiveness Addictivness will lead to brain damage by cutting of circulation to the brain. (9) (10) Animal studies gave proven that they are very addicted to cocaine and when addicted always try to get the drug, this concludes it is more addictive than any opiate. (11) In 1997 1.5 million where addicted to cocaine, out of 5.7 million users. (12) that's a 26% addiction rate. C4: deaths related to cocaine 3.1% of sudden deaths in Europe are related to cocaine. (13) It likely translates over. (13) C5: not FDA approved The FDA deems it toxic, and not safe. (14) Conclusion: No cocaine legalization vote con. http://m.drugabuse.gov... (1) http://www.macalester.edu.... (2) http://m.drugabuse.gov... (3) http://www.abovetheinfluence.com... (4) http://www.whosjack.org... (5) http://nickmizgala.net... (6) http://www.justice.gov... (7) http://www.justice.gov... (8) http://en.m.wikipedia.org... (9) http://www.m.webmd.com... (10) http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... (11) http://www.thecyn.com... (12) http://www.sciencedaily.com... (13) http://www.accessdata.fda.gov... (14)
Legalizing Cocaine

Is cocaine harmful and can it lethal? Yes, but so can every other drug if you take to much of it. Take for instance NyQuil if you chug two bottles of it you will probably die. not to mention you have no idea when you buy it illegally if its pure cocaine, for all you know you could be snorting oven cleaner mixed with cocaine. but lot of deaths from the use of cocaine can be avoided just by simply changing the delivery method. People who shoot up some times end up dead because they injected a air bubble in their blood stream. They shoot up, because buying cocaine is not cheap and they have to ingest or snort larger quantities to receive the same high. also you eliminate the chance that STDs will be spread. Is cocaine addictive? Yes, so is smoking, alcohol, sex, caffeine, watching T.V. and excising. Anything can be addictive, it just depends on the person. Will legalizing cocaine cause crime to go up? In 1998, Americans spent $66 billion on illegal drugs, with $39 billion being spent by consumers on cocaine (Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2000). plain and simple because of the street price of cocaine, people who are addicted to the drug have to steal. * I do not personally believe that Cocaine should be legalized, I just what to see if I can formulate a good case for it.
Legalizing Gay Marriage

I will first go over Points made by pro then introduce my own. I will outline my opponent's points in three major contentions. First on rights of people to be married so they can share insurance. This point is non-unique to the pro side. If this were to be a deciding factor for deciding if people should be allowed to marry then we would allow children to marry also. However we do not because this is not a well formed presence foe deciding this issue. Next an exact quote from the pro case. "I also believe they should be able to get married because the government, or anyone in this country does not have the right to tell people what is right or wrong" If this were a true statement then the government would not have passed laws such as speeding limits, rights to own property, and rights to living a life. This statement is absolutely ridiculous. We cannot take away the right to tell people right from wrong simply because a minority of the country wishes to engage in such actions. The key wording of this is tell people(any people) what is right from wrong. This statement cannot be defended because we must institute laws to protect citizens of the United States. If we did not institute laws both debaters in this case may not have been alive or available to make this debate. Third: The constitution states that two people (not male or female may get married) The constitution also does not say if children can be married. The constitution does not say if animals can get married. However, the Constitution was enacted as a major outline. We then allow the laws(which my opponent argues against) fall into place. This point does not gain my opponent any type of ground. Contention One: "Gay"Marriage is not marriage at all. According to dictionary. com's definition of marriage. (a legally recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic partners) The key wording in there is sexual. As we all know the prime route of Sexual is intercourse. Intercourse (the insertion of the penis into the vagina followed by orgasm; coitus; copulation. ) Since "Gay" people can only engage in Gay interactions then they cannot engage in one of the primary aspects of marriage. Since they cannot do this they cannot achieve marriage. Contention Two: Gay Marriage Will Undermine the Institution of Marriage: By allowing Gay marriage on the premises stated and the obvious underlying pursuit of happiness we are opening the door for many other(including gay marriage) outrageous marriage combinations. For example children. We cannot allow children to marry however they also face a natural given constraint. Thank-you.
Legalizing Gay Marriage

Gays should be able to be married because their partners that they have without being married do not get the same benefits as they would if they were married. Like if one of the people worked their patner could not be covered by that insurance that they have. I also believe they should be able to get married because the government, or anyone in this country does not have the right to tell people what is right or wrong. This country was founded on the policies of being free and being able to get married. The constitution says that two people, it does not say male and female, can be married.
Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal

Ok the text you are talking about is leviticus 20:13 ""If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. There is one key point your missing here if this is the text you are refurring to about the bible being against it. One it is in the old testimonies before Jesus came and made it so the only law we had to fallow was to love him. Two this is Moses talking to his people who needed guidance and laws. Also if you want to argue the bible as a reason, the reason it would be thought of as wrong from a biblical stance is that a man with a man or a woman with a woman can not do the one thing we were created to do wich is bring forth life and multiply. But this has nothing to do with marriage. I ask you if you believe it is a choose to be gay or are you born as it.
Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal

I understand this is your veiw I would never force anyone to change there views. I hope though that this debate might spark you to dive deeper into the bible so you can truly hold fast to what you believe or that you will find new lights in it. Just think on the fact that these people deserve the rights as we do. Not on a biblical stance but on a humanity stance. If I am wrong then on my day of judgment I will rather be wrong in love then in hate.
Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal

That's so sadly true now a days. It's ok to not wait or to bost about being a 'player'. It is sad that now a days when we are tired of it we throw it away weather it's cloths, gadgets or relationships. There is no more patching it up and making it work threw thick or thin. It's why I don't believe letting gays marry would hurt in those matters. (The hettro people do horrible things themselves to the principle of marraige) When they (from the personal people I know) have been some of the most loyal couples I have ever seen. How many hetro couples would stick together now a days for years knowing they are not accept by others? if you look past the differences (after all we are all different) they can be some of the most amazing people and deserve our respect in there our fellow people (even if they do not live the life we wish for them) but to love them as we are loved by Jesus(he I am sure loves them too) Now I sound all silly but it's ok. It's easy to judge and be fearful of what we do not understand. It takes strength to love even when we are not happy.
Why shouldn't gay marriage be legal

It is when you accept that it is not a choice that this all makes sense. It took me some time to realize this myself. In the garden (at the Makihg of Adam and eve) everything was perfect. Everything would have been sin free and everything, everyone would be perfect. When sin entered the worlds perfection stopped. would say someone who had Down syndrome made the choice to be that way. As some who is gay may not choose to be gay. If you see it this way for people who feel attracted to the same sex it makes sense. Things changed when the sin entered our awearness. Again these are laws that were made for a group of people. Not for us to use now, these laws were for mosses people and covered a large amount of things for them. Again I will say that this has no standing in today's christian world because the laws changed when Jesus took the cross. He said that the highest law to honor was to love him and to love your neighbor(other people) as you would yourself. Remember his friends were not pure people he picked the broken to be among. Also as a Christian you do more harm then good when you judge others because that again is not our place if you have such faith in God/Jesus do you not have faith that he will take care of it in the after life? But this has nothing to do with the right a person has to marriage. We as heterosexual people do not even do marraige justice anymore. There is a 50% devorce rate in the USA and who knows how many people stay together with someone who abusive, or in another form of sin but because it is a man and woman it is some how more ok then if it were two women or Men?
Every "good" person will get into Heaven.

I would like to base my first argument off of the values of Christianity and other religions. Christianity's values usually involve respecting all people, be humble, be honest, live a moral life, be generous with time and money, practice what you preach, don't be self righteous, don't hold a grudge, and forgive others. These values generally coincide with those of other religions. These are values that society would usually consider the makings of a "good" person. One does not have to be a Christian to practice these values, and most people on earth will appreciate these doings regardless of the well-doer's faith. If a Muslim were to follow all of these beliefs, and then be eternally damned for believing in a different deity, would that not be unfair? I would like to base my second argument off of the perceptions of God, being as follows. 1. God loves everyone 2. God forgives all sins If God truly loves everyone, God would not send a "good" person to Hell for simply not believing in him. It is understandable to God to send someone to hell if that person were, by today's standards, a bad person, but to send a kind, caring, loving, atheist to hell would seem wrong. If God truly forgives all sins, then why should believing in him be an exception? If a good person were being judged at the pearly gates, people can be forgiven for murder, but not for lack of belief.
Every "good" person will get into Heaven.

I would like to argue that anyone, regardless of religion, will be accepted into heaven, granted they lived life as a "good" person. Context: I've often heard people justify their involvement in religion to the thought, "If God is real, and I don't believe, then I will go to Hell. " This seems to be missing the point of Christian values, and I believe if anyone, atheist or Christian, is a "good" person, then they will be granted access to Heaven.
Modern Art

I am not sure what point PRO is trying to get across here. Art is for the viewer, not the artist. No matter how much praise the artist gives the piece, the final judge shall be the people. I think that PRO should consider other's opinions when speaking in such matter, as to say that the majority of people cannot even attempt to see how beautiful modern abstract art is. I think that PRO should restate his point in his topic and also learn to accept other's opinions.
Modern Art

With this discussion I intended to find out the majority of people who think that modern art sucks. Of course we also understand that there are people who can not understand the art itself, for example, do not know or understand the feelings and sensations that are transmitted by the traces and the colors. http://www.graphiccloud.co.uk... and do not understand what the artist wants to convey. I honestly do not think that's the fault of the artist, as a good connoisseur of art has to perceive the basics of drawing and painting.
Modern Art

I am an artist, and I can understand modern art. I do believe firmly that the "lines and colours" hold certain, deep, and unforgettable memories or thoughts for the artist, but modern art is being taken too far. Art is for viewing, and in the case of modern art, there is nothing there to visualize, to compare to. Picasso's work's are generally considered the first of modern art, and in his art, you can clearly see a scene, but also follow is train of thought throughout the piece, as if a surreal dream, in the context of modern art that you have been describing, there is no basis for the viewer, and therefore, there is no connection to be made, between the art and the viewer. Conclusion: My points are clear, and ideals driven, I deeply love "modern art" and hate it at the exact same time. In any sense, what are you hoping to accomplish with the title of this debate being "Modern Art"? Is this debate, a manifestation of art too?
Modern Art

I start round 1, against what many people think about modern art. People whatch at this pictures and paintings: (http://www.graphiccloud.co.uk...) and they say that it seems it was made by a kid. But what tose person dont' unterstand it's wath the colors and the lines transmit. And i think they are forgeting this kind of painting: (http://www.tjalfsparnaay.nl...) honestly i look at this and it's so greet that i can hardly say if it's real or not.
The Church is or isn"t good

Most of the things you are saying are good, are part ot religion and I"m not talking about religion. I"m talking about the Church. You"ve said that it controls the human mind. OK. But that"s not something good. As you shoud have realised, the Church always has an outdated mentality which is passed to all the people influenced by it. That means that, if the Church thinks women are inferior than men, a lot of people"s going to think the same. If the Church says that the theory of the evolution is wrong, a lot of people will believe it. People would accept what the Church says without thinking by themselves and that isn"t good at all. You"ve said the Church reduces the number of crimes. Really? Maybe (and I just say maybe), religion would reduce crimes but, the Church? How many times have people commited crimes in the name of the Church? How many times along history has the Church encourage people to fight to get the Holy Land back or for other things? Definetly, the Church does not help to reduce the number of crimes. Another thing you"ve said: the Church instills good morals in children. No. Religion does, not the Church. The same with stress and depression. Sometimes religion helps people with those things but not the Church. And it offers services to stop feeling guilty... This is just for Christians but OK. However, God is suposed to be everywhere. Shouldn"t he listen to you if you confess yourself in your house instead of in a church? Do you really need a church and a priest to confess yourself when you feel guilty? The Church helps preserve the environment and wildlife... As far as I know, the Church has never done anything to preserve the planet. Maybe it has. But, in my opinion, we should all respect the planet because it"s our home and we should let the animals live in peace because they have the same right as us. We shouldn"t abuse of our power just because we have it. And this are things we should do not because they are God"s creations but because they exist, are alive and have the right to live. And, finally, the educations system is helped by the Church as it builds schools and universities. Schools and universities educate future citizens. Religion is something personal, something each of us should think about and decide what do he or she do believe and what don"t. But what religious schools do is to instil in very little children ideas they haven"t even think about yet. They don"t let them think what they really believe in because they don"t have time. In my opinion, the Church doesn"t let people think freely. It imposes its ideas in people since a very young age and furthermore, it has problems like the ones with pederasty and the rent and taxes.
The Church is or isn"t good

I am just going to outline my points. I am saying the church is good because it controls the human mind something that can never be tamed.It also helps reduce crime and it makes the community a better place by instilling good morals in children and teenagers.It helps in reducing stress and depression together with guilt by offering services like confession repenting and deliverance and breakthroughs.Some people actually believe that it is God that takes care of their problems and they should not worry about tomorrow which keeps people healthy in mind.The church also helps preserve the environment and wildlife since they are God's creations.There is also charity, a big contribution that the church makes to the world.The education system is also helped by the church as it build schools and universities. This amongst others are some of the good the church does.