BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana Legislation

He says in his second argument that Hemp does have THC, but very little compared to marijuana. I am going to quote this from his second argument, "Although hemp is derived from the same plant as marijuana, the Cannabis sativa L plant, it does differ greatly to marijuana (Kane). The THC level of marijuana is measured at anywhere from four to 20 percent. Hemp, on the other hand, has a THC level of less than one percent; not nearly enough to even obtain the slightest "high" effect. " When pro then states in this most previous argument that Hemp has no THC, and that i am wrong in saying people could get high he is lying. So maybe instead of him copying and pasting off of a website he should actually read it so he knows what he is talking about. So if you want to talk about bulls**t, this would be a prime example. I currently have no burden of proof. Pro has the burden of proof to show that marijuana should be legalized, and he has not shown any facts on marijuana but only Hemp. So if pro wants to win this argument he will have to show why MARIJUANA, not Hemp, should be legal! This is legalization of marijuana debate. If you believe i should forfeit because of ignorance, just remember that i actually wrote all of this and did not cut and paste it. You can tell because i never said to exactly opposite things like you did. I hope after you read this you understand that you messed up and i believe you should forfeit. Pro also say that my facts about the wood industry are wrong, but you only bring up the fact that hemp is renewable. Pro never addresses the fact that this bill would hurt the wood industry in the United States! Also forest in developed nations forest are growing and returning to a healthy and restored condition. So this is not actually killing the environment but is a very sustainable resource. The forest are coming back not being destroyed: . http://www.rff.org... Just because the pro and con both agree on something does not mean a part of the debate is forfeited but that there is a general agreement to work off of. Just because i said hemp is harder to get high off of than marijuana does not change my stand point of the bill. It is actual fact that hemp is harder to get high off of than marijuana, but that does not make it right, or reason for it to be legal. The only reason i mentioned it was to agree that it was harder, but also to point out that it wouldnt make a difference how much harder it was to get high off of it if we sold 80 page notebooks of it like pro suggests.
Marijuana Legislation

I will dismiss the federal or state law argument. I look forward to this debate! Firstly, The paper industry is very large in the United States, and if we legalized the growing of Hemp it would hurt the wood industry and give already illegal pot growing people a job. That is not fair to hard working Americans. This could create new jobs but it will also have a damaging effect on a large sector of the American economy. Secondly, pro says it could be used as bio fuel if developed. If developed! That is not promising anything at all! Many things could be turned in to a bio fuel if they were developed. This statement if very circumstantial! Thirdly, Pro states that hemp is harder to get high off of than marijuana. I will agree with that, but we also have to consider that we will be making paper out of hemp. Kids could go buy a notebook, and roll some papers together and get high. Also, small children would be in danger. Young kids bit and chew things, i don't know why they just do. What is your child got ahold of your Hemp notebook? Would he be in danger? Yes, he would be consuming a drug! Fourth, Since when has enforcing a drug law been a petty waste of time and money. Also my opponent states all these good things about Hemp, and then slips in the legalization of true marijuana! He never backs his belief on why marijuana should be legalized. Selling Marijuana the same way as cigarettes and alcohol would not change the accessibility. Younger kids would still but it illegally and many adults would to, because it will be cheaper to buy illegally than at a government taxed rate. Pro may believe that we have lost the war on drugs but we haven't stopped fighting, if we did this we would be surrendering. We would make it more easy for drug dealers to grow marijuana, and sell it! Marijuana is a drug, We have no reason to consume it, smoke it, or take it in any way. It is not healthy for the body. Yes we are Americans and yes we are a free country, but yes the government can make things illegal if they harm the citizens. Pro talked all about hemp being legal and then talked about legalizing marijuana in this debate as well, i want to see his facts about marijuana legalization!
Marijuana Legislation

So for clarification can you tell us the TRUTH on whether Hemp does or does not contain THC, because it does. And the idea that kids could not get high off of an 80 page notebook is not ridiculous but actually a relatively genuine concern. most notebook are around 80 cents, they could but a lot of Hemp that way, and could get high very cheaply, unless you want someone to be 18 to buy paper. Also this video does contain polls, but just because americans believe we have lost the war on drugs does NOT mean americans believe we should legalize drugs. Also the facts were from Huffington post, which a notably bias news station. Also people will continue to buy illegal weed, it will be cheaper, and no tax! This would not help the war on drugs, also kids would still have to buy it illegally. Also this was not a simple mistake of yours! you are wrong in your debate. You choose to debate using youtube videos and copy and paste. This is why you contradict yourself so maybe you should debate and use your own ideas and make sure you read what you copy and paste. I could post a thousand youtube videos against this but i dont because the point of this website is so two people can debbate eachother. not one person debating youtube videos I am sorry that me pointing out your mistakes is arrogance. o no wait it isn't, and you have not reached your burden of proof on marijuana, only posted facts about hemp.
children should be allowed to box in school.

I also box at a club and i know many people wouldn't like it. However i didn't talk just about sparring. If someone wanted to spar they should have to wear appropriate protection(gumshield, head guard) but if they don't want to then they could do padwork, shadow, footwork etc. Maybe it should not be in a gym class but after school classes should be allowed. I think it should be an option as most schools where i am have banned it.
children should be allowed to box in school.

As a 16 year old boxer myself i can agree that their are ways to stay protected however the sport is not for everybody and it definitely shouldnt be forced onto somebody who isn't able to do it (The gym class scenario). You make a good point when you say that rugby is more dangerous: However, that is a statement that could very easily have bias behind as would me saying that boxing is more dangerous because i take part in it. "if you control the power of your punch" I like the point your trying to make when you say this but very few professionals can control their punch power let alone a bunch of school students who are new to the sport. And i too understand the risk factor in every sport.
children should be allowed to box in school.

sorry I forgot to outline the rounds and i meant boxing in general (gym and after school). I feel it is wrong to allow them to play rugby which you sprint at other people and slam into them but ban boxing. you can get hurt much more in rugby with broken bones and being trodden on by studded boots and people see that as fine but with boxing if you control the power of your punch and where proper protection it should be reasonably safe. I understand that there is a degree of risk in every sport.
Saitama VS Sans

My opponent has a couple of holes in his last points. First off, I'd like to bring up the fact that if Asriel needed a couple of resets just to beat Sans, the Saitama is no match, as Astiel is a GOD basically, being able to trap you in your own mind, smashing your save button, and much more. Since Saitama obviously can't save/reset, then this is an easy win. I'd also like to point out the fact that you only know Sans is predictable when you save/reset, meaning that Saitama wouldn't even know Sans's skillset. This would make him as unpredictable as Saitama No I did not REPEAT my argument about time stopping. I was simply refuting your points, with the argument. I did not FAIL to refute your arguments. I refuted the facts about Saitama's speed saving him, him getting dunked on, etc. I think I have refuted enough of your arguments to prove my point. It IS shown he can stop time (my video). I end my case. .
Saitama VS Sans

My opponent says Saitama is predictable, however, note that Sans has no clue of Saitama's true nature (and even if he did, it wouldn't really hint to how quick Saitama was).My opponent says Sans presumably time stops, but this might as well be teleportation or merely moving aside. My opponent also says Sans won't fall asleep, but regardless, Sans has shown to have only a bit of endurance before really getting tired, only needing about 30 turns, or 15 minutes or real time. My opponent again cites Sans' "stopping time" ability. Once again, it is never shown this ability, and Sans has not used this ability upon Chara Finally, as to address Flowey, I never said he could EASILY beat Sans. Even Flowey admitted he needed many saves and resets to defeat Sans, inferring that out of all the bosses, Sans needed the most resets. However, regardless of Flowey or Chara, they are inferred to only have the reaction timing of a human and not a superhuman able to react casually to a man going at the speed of sound, or even having the strength to lift their arm while in the gravity of a black hole. My opponent has not refuted the fact that Saitama is much much quicker than Chara, giving him a massive advantage, and my opponent has not refuted either the fact that Saitama negated a planet-wiping beam and could easily do the same to the gaster blasters. In addition, my opponent has failed to negate the fact that even the mighty Tornado, a skilled telekinesis, couldn't do much to Saitama. If my opponent chooses to take his last round to negate these, the judges ought to consider taking off conduct points since he had two rounds of oppurtunity to refute these before. My opponent has only repeated his one argument of stopping time, has not really brought up any sources to support, has, I stress, failed to refute my arguments, and thus I believe I win. Saitama would beat Sans in a death battle.Good debate; vote me.
Saitama VS Sans

Rebuttals to rebuttals: While Chara may be an unpredictable entity, One Punch Man certainly is not. It's in his name for crying out loud. Also, while Sans knows limited timelines, who's to say Saitama's isn't one of them. It is possible (though not likely). Actually, Sans probably does use this (time stop) in the battle against Chara, as that could possibly be how he manages to dodge all of your attacks. The only reason he got hit by that second attack is that he was caught by suprise, mostly because he fell asleep during his "ultimate move". he would most likely not use this fighting Saitama, as it most likely won't be a turn based fight. Because of this, he won't fall asleep, making it harder to catch him off guard. It wasn't the box that kills you when Sans dunks on you. It was the infinite bones that crushed your soul into dust. Just because Saitama can punch a box away doesn't mean he could punch all those away (and don't use extemely fast speed as a rebuttal, remember, Sans can stop time). If Flowey could easily beat Sans, than why is it widely known that Sans IS THE HARDEST BOSS IN THE GAME. Back to you, Pro
Saitama VS Sans

http://www.youtube.com...Rebuttalshttp://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...1. Fabric of timeWhile Sans knows about the different timelines, it is also inferred he doesn't know everything Chara can do. He does not expect Chara's second attack. The game is always programmed so that Chara will always beat Sans after he sleeps, and Chara will always deal two attacks in a row. Yet, even being able to tell how many times Chara died, Sans still has the same attacks every single time and still dies at the end. Either he is purposefully giving up at the end or he is really surprised. Regardless, Sans is clearly limited in this aspects. Sans is most likely not even close to truly knowing all the other timelines.2. Stop timeSans doesn't use this ability to stop Chara....3. Dunk on SaitamaWe're not sure if the box could even trap Saitama. In Asriel Dremurr's battle, it is shown that the box CAN be severely expanded. (See 13:44) The box can also completely disappear as in the battle against Omega Flowey. Saitama's thing is that he can break limits. And if he can destroy anything in one hit, the box can certainly be destroyed in one hit. 4. Reset timeWhat are you talking about? Sans has NEVER shown to know about the SAVES and RESETS. All he knows is that there are different timelines and you can die multiple times. Only Flowey has been inferred to know about the same ability. In his speech against Chara, he notes that everyone he has fought is predictable and has recycled dialogue, and that the ONLY unpredictable person was Chara, who could SAVE and RESET. If Sans could Save and Reset, then Flowey would surely comment on that. And also based on the fact that Base Flowey with SAVE and RESET could beat Sans -- I've done everything this world has to offer. I've read every book. I've burned every book. I've won every game. I've lost every game. I've appeased everyone. I've killed everyone." --strengthens the fact that Sans doesn't have the same powers Chara and Flowey have.Since I have many characters left, I shall add a new argument upon my previous arguments.3. Saitama is practically immune to telekinesis and magic In the third youtube video, One Punch Man is clearly shown to be extremely resilient to even Tornado, who was easily able to turn around numerous bombs within the Boros battle. This means that most likely Sans wouldn't be able to smash him into the wall with his bones power, and we're not even sure if the bones themselves would be able to effect Saitama. I extend my previous arguments. Back to you, opponent.
Saitama VS Sans

1. Sans knows the fabrics of time. In the game, it is well known that Sans is smarter than he lets on. In your final battle with him, he even tells you about the fabrics of time and how "you'll probably just reset anyway". This shows that Sans knows about many different timelines, and, therefor, would most likely know of Saitama's insane speed and strength. This would give him time to prepare and think about the battle, choosing the right actions to take in beating him. . https://m.youtube.com... 2. Sans can STOP TIME! In the Pacifist run, when you go with him to Grillby's, he literally STOPS TIME so he can talk with you about the talking flower (Flowey). This is evident when everyone's sprites stop moving as soon as the light shines on just Frisk and Sans. Obviously, Sans can probably use this to catch Saitama (even with incredibly fast speed). Since it doesn't say how long he can hold time for, it is safe to assume he can do this forever if he wants too. This can lead to him atacking and attacking Saitama until the ends of time (Sans is already a skeleton, so he won't ever die of age). . https://m.youtube.com... (Sorry, Undertale's not supposed to have voices, just couldn't find another video of it. 3. Sans can dunk on Saitama. You know where this is going. .. (unless you haven't played Undertale. .. in which you should DO IT! ) 4. Sans can most likely reset time, like Chara If a child craving power can reset the fabrics of time for a second go at domination, most likely, A time God can as well. Saitama probably doesn't know about it, so Sans can just keep resetting time until he actually beats Saitama.
Saitama VS Sans

http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...1. Saitama is too quick for SansIn the youtube video, it is clear that Saitama is able to move at a speed so fast that in only about 10 seconds, he is able to jump from the moon down to the earth. Being that the distance is 230,100 miles, [see https://www.google.com...], Saitama's quickest speed shown so far is 23,010 mile per second. Sans' greatest feat is dodging a kid's sword. While we don't know how fast Chara was, even if Chara was a malicious force taking control of a human body, a study finds that even theoretically, normal humans can only run 40 miles per hour at maximum. [http://www.livescience.com...]. The thing was, Sans was able to observe Chara at her very best. But since in round one I already stated Saitama was in-character, he most likely would hold back against Sans (Except possibly speed-wise, since he didn't hold back even against Genos in that aspect). Sans wouldn't suspect that Saitama would be able to move at this insane speed, and thus would be caught off-guard and easily killed. Let me make another case for Saitama. Even if Sans COULD dodge this insane speed, Saitama's speed only strengthens his victory against Sans. In the second youtube video, a human--Chara--was clearly able to dodge the bones. Again, the fact that even Chara was able to detect and dodge these bones after a few saves and reloads asserts the fact that Saitama would not be easily hit by the bones, especially if he didn't want to be hit. 2. Saitama is too strong for SansSaitama has NEVER been hurt in a fight, except in his dreams. He has only be ever gotten dust on his clothes, and the one time he did NOT finish an opponent in one punch was when he was holding back. There's no evidence that even Sans poison of "Karmic Retribution" could damage Saitama, since even a massive energy explosion sending Saitama to the moon didn't do anything to him (which Sans did not even show himself remotely capable of doing...). Let us analyze this another way. If Frisk, a pacifist child, has 20 health at the start of the game, and we assume all the people on Saitama's planet having 20 health (except Saitama himself and exceptionally strong heroes), and let's say his planet has only one billion people (for easy calculation). Even then, Boros's planet-surface wiping beam would deal a massive 20 billion damage (kill everyone on earth). The fact that Saitama can wipe it out with a "Serious serious punch" hints that he is capable of negating 20 billion damage. Sans can deal one damage per frame, and there are 24 frames in a second. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] To make calculation simple, let's say Sans takes it slower than Chara and takes 15 minutes, fully taking damage from Sans's poison. Despite such, 24*60*150 merely equals 216000 damage. Even assuming that the Karmic Retribution can make each hit deal 100 times more damage (because Saitama killed many monsters), the total damage is still only 216,000,000. That would absolutely obliterate Chara but would be nothing against Saitama since he negated 20 billion damage while holding back.Onto you my opponent.
Saitama VS Sans

Saitama: destroys all opponents with one punch, hero for funSans: dies in one punch, skeleton who loves punswho wins?Round one acceptance.I am arguing that within a death battle, Saitama would win versus Sans. Saitama is post-training, post-Boros. Sans is presumed to be in Genocide mode and will do anything to stop Saitama. Location of battle: Judgement hall. (This doesn't really matter but I'm just setting the scene that makes the most sense :P )Both of the battle people are in-character.4000 character max
Zooey Deschanel is just so... ugh

Thank you, and good luck to you too! You have made many good points. Zooey Deschanel definitely is not talent-less. The first movie I had ever seen her in was Elf, and I liked her a lot. I thought she was quirky and different. Her character Jovie was still nonchalant, but it worked. I especially loved the scene where she was singing in the shower- I remember thinking "wow, she's got a really great voice!" Two years later, I saw her in Hitchhiker's Guide to the galaxy. I noticed that her take on the character Trillian was identical to Jovie. After that, I saw her in Tin Man, and noticed that she had the same take on that character too. Since then, I have seen a pattern in every part she has played. She's the same character. In EVERYTHING. Jovie, Trillian, DG, Allison, SUMMER (boy, did that character piss me off... poor Tom)... they're ALL the same- half dead and nonchalant. It worked for one character, but one is enough. I feel very similar about her singing style- she's very good for certain types of songs, but others... her voice is just too blah to pull it off. For example, she sang the hell out of "Baby, It's Cold Outside", but she didn't sound so hot singing "Sugar Town" and many other recent songs... and theme song for her newest show- New Girl, seems like there is something missing. Speaking of New Girl... Zooey breaks the chain of "bored" characters as Jess. YAY. I have to say that I do like this character. However... I think another actress would have suited the role much better. Zooey playing Jess just seems like Zooey PLAYING Jess. Not BEING Jess. It's like a bored person trying to pretend they're not bored. Their actions and their words may resemble that of someone who is partying and having a good time, but their tone of voice and facial expressions SCREAM boredom... "Blah. I wanna go to bed. Thank god I'm getting paid to do this. Etc." The IMDB link you sent me... her picture pretty much says it. Instead of saying "cheese", she looks like she's saying "I'm bored". It's great to have a signature style that you can incorporate into all of your parts when acting, but this one just comes out way too much. Obviously she is doing well though, she has MANY fans, and this argument is entirely my opinion. I just think she needs to break free a little. New Girl may be a good push in the right direction for her, but there is a lot of room for improvement.
Zooey Deschanel is just so... ugh

Honestly, I don't think she's a good actress at all. I find her to be very strange, blasï¿½, and unlikable, but obviously she has a huge fan base. My opponent must prove how her bored-with-everyone-and-everything, half dead, and nonchalant attitude and personality works for all the huge roles she lands in movies and media, which is obviously making her quite a fortune.
One should not feel sorry for those who are narcissistic, arrogant, control freaks

"By feeling sorry for someone, you obtain a negative feeling. One feels bad for punishing a child." This does not effect the parents actions. Feeling=/=Doing. Also: "Moreover, someone who doesn't care about the child will not try as hard as a person who cares to correct the child." "Also feeling sorry for a child is not equivalent to not caring about the child." It is. You emphasize with whom you care about. "It is hypocritical for my opponent to not feel sorry for Osama Bin Laden but feel sorry for a narcisstic, arrogant control freak" 1. I did not concede 2. "How do we know that an arrogant, control freak doesn't know better?" Because his actions cause sympathy or downfall. 3. How could then Osama know better? I take those words back but even if I didn't I argue that religion blinded him "People who do not feel sorry are more likely to speak their mind against them." Unfounded. In conclusion, the person doesn't know any better and it is healing unlike what my opponent suggested.