BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Weed should be legal and also for cancer patient .

Well we both looking at in to different opinion on it . Now alcohol you drink you shouldn't be driving people still do that .now the reason Mariol you were talk about yes it has some extract of weed in it but it not the same thing it does have the Cbv. Weed in the natural form is good . Now my alcohol and tabocco reference come from google and yes admit should have gone deeper on the research but still weed not really a evil substance . A person who has ms doesn't get the same effect from weed like a normal person does . I know this going off topic but who you can understand we're am coming from the point of debate is to see both view point not to be hard headed try to mudsling . The reason weed ban it for tax purposes and companies wouldn't want legal cause you can make gas , clothes, rope etc. alcohol is legal because people get tax from and if we can learn some from alcohol prohabition era how many people did it crime gos up any age can get it and get it accessible to them don't be blind to the fact are kid in are country go school and buys it . I know that if they were to make legal 21 years age to get it. But since I know it not going to be legal any time soon they make it for the cancer patient cause marol it not as effect as weed they have done the study . This America home of the free here drink ur beer and smoke your cigs but don't smoke weed cause it a class a drug even though it not addicted to it . The reason they say there a a lot of addict is because a cop pulls you over you to jail then court then they tell do you want to go to prison for 1 year or go to rehab . Your to pick rehab over the harsh time . Your against this topic cause your told all your life it bad but how many death you seen from weed? No deaths . The worst thing to tell your kids when growing weed the worst cause then they try and say that not bad they lied then they try the hard drugs . Nixon ran a test on monkeys and said it kills brain cells. But what they tell you the monkey didn't get any oxygen.
Weed should be legal and also for cancer patient .

I think this is quite an interesting position to take as the core of your argument can be summarized by, "if other greater evils exist, then a lesser evil can persist." But, how do we measure the means of which is more evil than the other? Most will use a "barometer of death" to weigh the greater evil and, as you"ve demonstrated, this "barometer" satisfies your inquiry into the degreed evils of vice. I don"t care to fact check your statistic of deaths linked to alcohol and tobacco as the number is arbitrary for the purpose of this debate; we both agree that the aggregate of deaths from alcohol and tobacco are far higher than the handful of deaths attributed to impairment by THC. However, is this "barometer" an efficient and effective measure to make policy? Marijuana abuse may only lend to a dozen deaths a year but that doesn"t necessarily construct a sound argument for its legalization. Currently marijuana is classified as a Controlled I Substance and, in my opinion, the largest criticism this continual reauthorization of this classification receives is a result of the third and last criterion of requirement to be listed as a Controlled I Substance: "the drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." We know this not to be true, science tells us that. THC has been proven to reduce nausea in chemotherapy recipients; dull pain, and in some cases, better than opiates; reduce the amount of seizures and sporadic anxious brain activity; and spur appetite. Yet with marijuana"s vast list of medicinal uses its still classified as a Scheduled I drug. How can this be? I"ll tell you. Firstly: Marinol. It is a drug whose derivative stems from THC, and because we are limited to 5000 words, but mostly because I"m not a chemical engineer, I can"t intimately describe the in-depth process of producing Marinol. However, as it was "to make a long story short," Marinol is essentially all of the medicinal perks of THC without the impairment or euphoria. Secondly and lastly, there are two other criterions that seem to be virtually untouched by the critics of marijuana"s classification as a Schedule I substance: 1. The drug has a high potential for abuse 2. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision No one seems to argue that, even as the tightest regulated controlled substance, marijuana isn't the most abused drug in America. Because, you can"t. Because it is, which means it overwhelmingly meets the requirements for "high potential for abuse." Anecdotally, 1 should satisfy 2, because I can"t tell you how many time I"ve heard "yo, you have to try this bombass bud, bro " my buddy has a medicinal license in Cali and sold me half!!" However, in the larger scheme of policy making given the high propensity and rate of marijuana abuse I viscerally feel that 1 will satisfy 2 every time.
Weed should be legal and also for cancer patient .

Growing up some people or should issue kid was label add or ADHD . They were given adderoll . That a drug a bad one at that lasted year it killed 31,110 people .alcohol linked death 75,000 . Cigar and cigarettes kill evey year 440,000 . They by 2030 8 million people might die . But that a guess . If it was legal the government can tax on it like they do with alcohol or cigar or cigarettes . And they can I. D the people they would have to be the age of 21 year of age . And the kills with devoting minds don't get of hold of weed only 21 years of age group to the age 100 years etc. I think it a right of American they to make there choice . Water can kill you if you drink to much . Enough said if water a need and if u drink to much of it is bad . Same rule applies to everything etc .
Pro Choice (arguing from a self-ownership position)

Pro Choice (arguing from a self-ownership position) Dexterbeagle will argue for pro-choice rights based on a firm belief in the philosophical, legal, and political merits of self-ownership. The Wikipedia entry, (here: http://en.wikipedia.org...) provides the necessary context, although those interested in developing arguments might want to consider the section with the heading HISTORY, specifically this: John Locke wrote in his Two Treatises on Government, "every man has a Property in his own Person." Locke also said that the individual "has a right to decide what would become of himself and what he would do, and as having a right to reap the benefits of what he did." The reason I note the quote mentioned above is because this is the most interesting"at least to me"most salient part of the debate. Quick formatting/rules to consider before accepting the debate BOP will split 50/50, meaning the winner is the person that provides the best argument, sources, grammar, conduct as designed in the standard 7-point system. First round acceptance Second Round opening remarks and rebuttals Third Round major arguments/counterarguments, rebuttals, or more precisely making a strong case for your position. Welcome comments for help strengthen the debate. The proposition seems clear to me"however, as I"ve learned since my entry into the DDO world, my words are often imprecise to others, so please provide comments and I will make an effort to address questions related to the debate or for further clarification. I am going to make one or two additional points in the comments section answering general questions I anticipate a potential opponent would want answer. Best of luck to Con. Look forward to the debate.
Abortion is Just.

This debate will be between Kasmic and I. This will be a short and quick debate. 4 Rounds, 24 Hours to post your argument and 2,000 character limit. The debate here will be "Abortion is Just" The debate shall follow this structure. R1. Definitions from Pro/ Acceptance from Con. R2. Rebuttal/Argument from both sides. R3. Rebuttal/Argument from both sides. R4. Conclusion Definitions: Abortion [1] Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. Just [2] agreeing with what is considered morally right or good treating people in a way that is considered morally right reasonable or proper Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Abortion is Just.

Thank you Lee for this short debate. I want to note that she has been a great sport and agreed to do this debate at my invitation. Thanks Lee! Conclusion: My opponent implies that because my argument is only 7 words long with no sources to back it up that it falls to the weight of her arguments. On the contrary the only argument that stands at the end of the debate is my 7 word argument. No where did my opponent refute the idea that abortion is painful, harmful or sad. From this I concluded that abortion is not “good” Thus she concedes this argument. As Justice was defined this shows that abortion is not just. Pro has dropped not only my argument but her own arguments as well. She argued that legal makes just. Yet after I refuted that, it is not included in her conclusion. (Dropped) Instead her conclusion argues something new entirely. “It is moral because it is done humanley. ” Per rules, arguments were to be presented in the middle rounds, not in the conclusion. The only valid argument standing is that Abortion is not "good. " It is painful, harmful, and sad. Pro has failed to fill her burden.
Abortion is Just.

Conclusion: My opponent says he did make an argument by saying "good. " It is painful, harmful, and sad. " His argument includes 7 words. He provides no facts, nor does he use any sources to prove his claim. He is simply implying a belief/statement. I had provided you with facts and evidence to show that Abortion is just. It is just because it is a moral right. It is moral because it is done humanley, and not only is it dont humanley but it is a benefit to the mother because it relieves her of stress, and by denying her an abortion is causes mental problems. I'm sorry for making this so short, I had a situation pop up. But I have made myself pretty clear.
Abortion is Just.

Pro says “I have sucessfully showed that, letting a women abort is reasonable”Justice allowing someone to be free to choose something is not the same as indorsing what they choose. “It *is* considered morally right, because it is not illegal. she has the freedom to do so.”Many things in history have been “Legal” yet unjust. Is my opponent suggesting that slavery was just because it was legal? Legal =/= Just“if aborting a baby was such a crime, they would make it illegal right?”Abortion is not legal everywhere… For example in Nicaragua. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) “They would make it illegal because it is inhumane to the child.” “Making it legal proves that it *is* just.”My opponent has argued that if something is legal it proves it is just. This means my opponent agrees that slavery (when legal) is just. Likewise we see that Abortion is Illegal in many places. This makes it clear that Legal=/=Just. I did make an argument last round. I argued that Abortion is not "good." It is painful, harmful, and sad.My opponent has not filled her burden of proof, being that her only arguement relevent to the resolve was legal = just. This is obviously not the case and thus her case is negated and the burden is left unfilled.
Abortion is Just.

Thank you Con. I have sucessfully showed that, letting a women abort her child is reasonable, and yet a propper decision because she wished to do so. It *is* considered morally right, because it is not illegal. she has the freedom to do so. Con then states "interaction between the State and the person who may have the abortion" so, is aborting a baby was such a crime, they would make it illegal right? They would make it illegal becuase it is inhumane to the child. Yet, they allow the women to have the right to abortions. They shall not deprive a women of her rights, or make her feel guilty for her actions and choices. The goverment allows abortions, because it is just. Con the gose on to claim that we arent debating "the legality of abortion, rather the action itself." Yet, is abourtions were un-just wouldn't they make abortions illegal. Making it legal proves that it *is* just. Con then says "This debate is not about whether people should be "denied" abortion, rather about the action itself. Likewise this debate is not about the governments involvement. It is simply about whether Abortion is Just." Again, the same rule applys. The goverment guarentees the well-being and saftey of individuals. The definition of Just is "agreeing with what is considered morally right or good" Basically, the goverment allows abortions because it is moraly right, and good. Individuals have freedom to choose what they wish. Conlusion: * Note that not mande a new argument in this round. He didn't follow the debate structure. He did not provide any arguments asy to *why* aboirtion is un-just. Instead, he corrected my argument. To be fair to him, I will not post a new argument, instead I extend.
Abortion is Just.

Justice: My opponent has defined Justice as "agreeing with what is considered morally right or good, treating people in a way that is considered morally right, reasonable or proper" B.O.P. My opponent as pro must fill the burden of proof that Abortion is "considered morally right or good" "treating people in a way that is considered morally right" "reasonable or proper" The Right to Abortion The Fourteenth Amendment has to do with interaction between the State and the person who may have the abortion. It is not concerned with whether the action of abortion is just. Pro says"The government can't tell her what to do with her body, they guarantee these rights to all Americans." We are not debating the legality of abortion, rather the action itself. Well-Being of the Mother This debate is not about whether people should be "denied" abortion, rather about the action itself. Likewise this debate is not about the governments involvement. It is simply about whether Abortion is Just. Conclusion: As my opponent has the burden to prove abortion "Just" she must show abortion is morally right or good. She must show it is reasonable or proper. None of which has been done. Rather she has affirmed the value of freedom, that people be able to choose for themselves. This only clarifies that freedom is just" not abortion. Abortion is not "good." It is painful, harmful, and sad. As the BOP is not filled, I will send it back to pro.
Abortion is Just.

The Right to Abortion. Section 1. of the 14th ammendment clearly states that [1] "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Note that, the state shall not deprive someone of life, they can't take away a individuals rights, nor can they deprive them of life. [2] Deprive- deny (a person or place) the possession or use of something. If a women wishes to have an abortion, she should be able to because it is her right. As stated in the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," A women's body is her own property. The government can't tell her what to do with her body, they guarantee these rights to all Americans. Well-Being of the Mother Studies have shown, women whom are denied abortions suffer long term health and or mental problems. [3] "A Sep. 2013 peer-reviewed study comparing the mental health of women who received abortions to women denied abortions found that women who were denied abortions "felt more regret and anger" and "less relief and happiness" than women who had abortions. The same study also found that 95% of women who received abortions "felt it was the right decision" a week after the procedure. The goverment promises not to deprive someone of life. Women are deprived of happiness. Instead, they live with regret and anger. They are unable to live a healthy life, because they were denied of their rights. Sources [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://abortion.procon.org...
Progressive Rock

Van Der Graaf Generator, nice pick! For this round I'll choose Yes's "Close to the Edge." http://www.youtube.com... This early 70s hit really does go places no other band has done. It is a gold standard that was never surpassed. Every aspect of its execution is virtually flawless. The slow-burning build-up, the crashing intensity of the first several minutes, the majesty of the middle section, to the effulgent conclusion that brings the end right back to the beginning before fading out.
Progressive Rock

Haha, I was planning to use Jethro Tull this round or the next. I love watching Ian Anderson on stage! The song "Refugees" was written by Peter Hammil about two of his best friends, Mike and Sussie, who immigrated leaving him alone. While it was written because of his two friends it's a song about all refugees over the planet. It's a very beautiful and sad song, bursting with background melodies and various instruments. It was written in 1970. "We walked along, sometimes hand in hand, between the thin lines marking sea and sand; smiling very peacefully, we began to notice that we could be free," http://www.youtube.com...
Progressive Rock

I didn't know other people even knew about this song! Great choice! For this round, I chose Jethro Tull, "A Passion Play." http://www.youtube.com... One of many songs in the era to take a relatively straightforward examination of what happens after death, Tull's "A Passion Play" perplexed almost anyone that listened to it simple for entertainment. At a simple level, however, the examination of what happens after death it perplexing enough to get your mind going. Unlike the hundreds of other Progressive Rock songs, this song's lyrics are clear enough to not be debated over as often. The almost silent introduction almost draws you in and makes you turn up your volume in a ceaseless attempt to gain your attention.
Progressive Rock

Great song choice con! King Crimson are a band I've always loved and they are certainly one of the front runners of progressive rock. The fact that the album came out in 1969, if my memory serves me, also points to how influential and original they were.I'm going to choose a band who in my opinion are one of the most underrated progressive rock bands of all time. Their debut album, from which the song was taken, was created in the early seventies when progressive rock was starting to gain its popularity. It features a wonderful prog-rock-typical organ solo latter on in the song. The oppening guitar has also been borrowed from the band Opeth, the main member of whom is a big fan of Camel. At the end of the song, Andrew Latimer plays a very nice guitar solo which is certainly worthy of the common solos you find in progressive rock. http://www.youtube.com...Back to you con.
Progressive Rock

Almost didn't realize this was a 24 hour argument debate. Okay, here we go, then. King Crimson - "In the Court of the Crimson King" is my absolute favorite Progressive Rock song, simply because of it's outstanding lyrics, the powerful message, and the seemingly pleasing aspect of the song in general. http://www.youtube.com... This song was practically the ideal music at the time, because it showed everyone exactly what music could be. Not only the song, however, but the cover was a true work of art. Putting as much work as possible into this song, King Crimson dominated the Progressive Rock era. Sgt. Pepper, himself, popularized the album as a work of art in it's entirety. The prime example of Progressive Rock and what it was able to be, this song is easily the best Progressive Rock song I have ever heard and learned about.
Progressive Rock

This is just for fun and to perhaps discover some new prog rock bands. It will end in a tie. Voters can just specify who they think won in their RFD but no side will win on points. Guidelines:Each person posts a song for each round from a progressive rock band. I'll start. http://www.youtube.com..."Time" is a meangful song from the concept album Dark Side of the Moon. It's lyrics were written by Roger Waters and are about the general theme of time in our every day lives. "Ticking away the moments that make up a dull dayYou fritter and waste the hours in an offhand way.Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home townWaiting for someone or something to show you the way."
Rap Battle

Well this victory is certain Cause who's gonna lose to TUF the generic version So quit or this is gonna worsen But It would way worse for you if I rapped in person And to me a loss here is nothing But I want you to now something These bombs will keep coming And I sorry I took so long because unlike you I have a life My raps will pierce through you like a butchers knife And saying that I spit out crap man screw you I make sure that this is something you won't get through And thinking your gonna beat me , man your delusional After i kill you ill make sure to tell your family to be at your funeral
Rap Battle

Yo dawg I'm sorry for "starting" in round 2I was trying to pass the baton to youBut you threw it away, cuz you're not in the raceYou're no good at taking handouts I suggest you call ChaseCuz you chase from behind prepare to face my mindYou may have the heart but you're gonna be flat linedWith flat lines, sharp rhymes, from accidental crimesThose are musical puns, if you need some signsNow excuse my intelligenceBut I have more of that than relevanceSo forgive my lack or referencesBut I'll refer to inferencesAbout how I expect occurrencesOf expletives and guessesThat show a lack of creative messageAnd absurd requests of blessageWell Pro prove me wrong and I'll write a song just for youBut I honestly won in Round 1 and just victory lapped round 2.
Rap Battle

Why should I quit?When you just started to spit?When you don't have any wit?I'm the face of this battle, you're the armpitI like your threatBut its the internetAnd we've never metSo why should I sweat?If you're gonna threat please do it properlyYou're threats are emptier than a town thats always been beggarlyI can teach you a thing or two, call it Christmas charityThis how you threat, now forgve my vulagarityYou're a waste of space that should be maced without ceasingI wouldn't kill you ever, why give you ultimate releasing?I'd invite your family, but not to your deceasingWith 1000 bullets I'd make a thousand creasings And as you were bleeding I'd keep your mother drinkingThe blood that would be leaking from your mouth as you're speakingAnd crying and whining and begging for mercyThen I'd kill your whole family, call it common courtesyThats hows it done but its so immatureTo use threats of death I'd rather use wordsThat could determine your worth which is less that afterbirthWhen it comes to this game I'll get the votes I deserveI know you won't back down but you truly are patheticYou know that you've lost but theres not need to panicKeep rhyming about knives, TUF, because you're just so poeticBut I am truly apathetic and you are clearly herpetic