BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Marijuana Legislation should not pass.

When you say me saying marijuana Is a drug is not neccesarily permissible is incorrect. Marijuana is a drug regardless of its effects. Whether it helps or not it is still a drug. It is a schedule one substance that shows its value and where it stands. Some pills used for pain such as Tylenol even though it is not extreme will take away your pain, and not alter your brain. It won't alter your senses or your perception. Marijuana does. The effects are similar not the same, and the effects at completely diffrent. Banning and something being illegal is pretty much the same thing? The argument I made that you spoke on and tried to break down didn't make since. However it is a good thing cocaine is illegal as well as other drugs because it is helping the community and the people whom don't know any better. Sure you can say it's a freedom of choice. If someone didnt know any Better or we young, they would be not prone to try it, and even more at that if it was legalised. Cocaine shouldnt be used, it's not the same as Ritalin or else that would be illegal as well. Cocaine makes you ugly :/. When you say if someone wants to take it for a small reason makes it acceptable, then you are also for recreational use. Because if someone went into a dispensary to get cannabis with a scratch, and got some. That's not medical use. A traditional mindset means that if you are destroying your body to have fun and enjoy at an expense that you are ruining your body is not very smart. Right have fun and get hurt. There are other ways to have fun. But hey their lives and outlooks. I'm sure however grandparents in the older generations were not going out and getting wasted and intoxicated. In the end it is free choice of the states. If people want It that bad, then it will be legalized. The world did people a favor out of education and knowing right from wrong. Just like a mother not giving her obese child a candy bar. free choice right :) However once it becomes legal professionals will regret the decision after seeing the consequences. Maybe the government is doing themsleves a favor to get nor money. Yes it has a big impact on the economy but it is unnecesary. I believe smart people will refrain. Don't indulge in worldly pleasures and you will see the garden -to religious people is this quote. An excessive user does eventually become slow. And this I noticable. Chemical dependency one. It's harder for them to learn things that would be easier to other people.
Marijuana Legislation should not pass.

I will just go over some quick points. I would like to talk about the stigma around smoking. Many people agree that smoking is bad for human lungs, and that is used to make arguments against legalising weed. Those arguments should fall flat on the grounds that smoking is one of many forms of to benefit from weed's effects. Some alternative methods include edibles and pills. With more methods are being studied the smoking is bad argument becomes less important. There is also a common argument about it being addictive. Caffeine is vary addictive, and many people have more of it than they should in a day. There is caffeine in a lot of drinks, but there are not many people fighting to ban coffee. http://www.fda.gov...
Marijuana Legislation should not pass.

Medical marijuana as well as recreational use of marijuana should not be legalized in the United States. I do not live elsewhere so i wont include any other countries. Medical marijuana may have certain benefits, but they are not benefits that out do any other type of medication allotted. Marijuana is a drug. It fogs up your brain and changes your perceptional views of reality; as well as your five sense. Cocaine is also a drug. Cocaine has some benefits. It wakes you up. So should cocaine be legalized in a sense that all professionals are using it to stay awake for work; like energy drinks? I personally don't think so. Medically speaking individuals will begin to find any reason and sore to take the drug. To even have fun and enjoy. That's a little strange if you have a traditional mindset. The world should not go down the wrong path. Marijuana will usually make a user eventually lazy, paranoid, and slow. It is proven that it slows your ability to learn. Recreational use, is a big no no. Recreational use makes it look acceptable to children and young adults. Would you like to walk around and just smell marijuana all the time, lets be honest some people may not think its that pleasant. Would you like to go into work where your coworkers are high? Or out to eat and the couple is high behind you? If many people were stoners it would be a major downfall to society. But in the end it would just weed out the people whom don't fall into social pressure and choices. Children don't need to be exposed to such drugs and them to be embellished and shown as something beneficial. People used to say it was a gate way drug. Looks like society itself will enter the gate lol. Many people whom smoke marijuana are usually the people who want it legalized. Those who haven't experienced the drug may have different opinions. Someone who has smoked in the past. (No longer a user) Am happy to have stopped. In doing so life changes, and it becomes more brighter, and honestly more yourself (and cleaner). There are different choices people can take to ease their pain than taking illegal drugs. HOWEVER (a whole other piece of mind) There is a chance medical marijuana could benefit certain people. But these specific people who get seizures, and have life threatening issues, that only cannabis should treat should have special access to the governmental system in which they specifically receive medical marijuana. Only to those who have had excessive testing. People are trying to get certified because they have a scratch or slight back pain, that is not what the drug is for. Other opinions are welcomed!
Religion is False

My selected religion is Humanism. Before we begin I would like to propose some definitions. Religion - a set of beliefs accepted by a group of people regarding ethics, principles and philosophies as well as origins of humanity and the earth Humanism - a religious philosophy that all humans should be respected and conclusions should be made based on reasoning (thus humanism does fit the definitions of religion which do not require belief in a deity) To win this debate, my opponent will have to prove that the principles of humanism are incorrect. The principles of humanism are as follows: - Humans beings should be treated with mutual respect. - An overall positive outlook on life. - A valuing of reason to determine solutions and answers.
Liberals and conservatives should meet in the center to create a public option for healthcare.

Health care is not a right. Health care is a service. The rhetoric involved in the campaign for the "right of health care" attempts to camouflage the morals and ethics of diverting financial liability of those who can't afford the service to those who can. Furthermore, the presumption that health care is a right presupposes that there's an a priori entitlement to either of two things: (1) the labor of physicians, nurses, and other health care workers, or (2) in the absence of contract or transaction, the money and/or other assets of others. If health care was in fact a right, does that not allow labor and resources to be exploited even by force? And how does one resolve the moral/ethical issue in imposing this right by forcibly including dissenters?
Falling in love at young age-heavenly or devilish

oh, it is like saying 'pregenancy' at young age at a young age is a good way to realise what motherhood really is. certain habits like smoking,drug abuse,unprotected sex should never be justified in any sense as they are outright fell to the core. So, is the case of love in childhood which can tacitly harm a person and deprive him\her of a wonderful future.Instead he\she could stabilize in life (during graduation or after graduation) and then find his/her dream boy/girl. I know this is difficult it is a paradox wherein it actually isin't. To eliminate the feeling of being in love and at the same time admiring that person(that is ameliorating your sexual harmones)you could become good friends,play sports,engage in intellectual activities etc.
Falling in love at young age-heavenly or devilish

Let me proffer this debate to the viewers,voters and the instigator by expressing few noteworthy points here: 1. At young age we tend to interact innocuously with both the sexes. Our sexual harmones are not developed and dress is the only distinguishing factor. At such stages we may have liking for a person from the same sex or the opposite sex,it may be with a person of different age group. As such we admire them,make them our ideals,interact and play with them. This is all a part of the natural psychological growth process. If we were to treat this as 'in love' then we get into ugly sorts of trouble like being in relationship,physical or sexual abuse,stalking,eve-teasing etc. 2. The second point in would like to mention is the the crassness in the definition of love. what is love actually? It is like you meet a person,get to know more about them and if you like them you could make them your life partner. But nowadays infatuation,crush,affection,companionship,friendship are often confused for 'the feeling of love'. 3. My third opinion is that love is a marital commitment and not a share market to buy shares hold them and sell them. Nowadays we woman dumping men every 6 months and vice versa. Why even some of my friends maintain a fancy calendar on when to dump the present and try for a new one. 4. I just quickly list down the potential drawbacks: a. having to spend your money to buy candies,dolls etc b. Having to do your lovers homework c. Daydreaming,nightdreaming there by stressing your brain and make it unable to focus on other activities(my experience) I will elucidate these and more of these in my forthcoming arguments. .
Falling in love at young age-heavenly or devilish

I the contender to this argument take the position that falling in love at a young age is moronic(depends on what country you are but assume some young age which you feel could be),the various fellings associated with it:dreamy,romantic,frivolous,innocence and also being eccentric,lackadaisical in your work,detached from the reality.Come debate out with me and i must warn you I AM EXPERIENCED IN THIS ONE.....
windsheild wipers are living things too you know..

-I would like to point out that himler has not stated any evidence towards whether windsheild wipers are organic or not..- -This makes him useless....- -My toast just popped up so I guess its time to feast- -I have returned and have come up with something to say.. windshield wipers move without human interference and also like to share there pie.- -I await my opponents response-
windsheild wipers are living things too you know..

///Noï¿½whereï¿½inï¿½thatï¿½sourceï¿½didï¿½itï¿½stateï¿½thatï¿½windshieldsï¿½areï¿½nonï¿½organicï¿½things./// Noï¿½explicitly,ï¿½butï¿½becauseï¿½metalï¿½andï¿½plasticï¿½areï¿½notï¿½livingï¿½thingsï¿½neitherï¿½areï¿½windshieldï¿½wipers. ~ ///Theï¿½carï¿½doesï¿½notï¿½haveï¿½toï¿½beï¿½onï¿½forï¿½themï¿½toï¿½move.ï¿½debatesï¿½notï¿½aboutï¿½weatherï¿½theyï¿½workï¿½properly./// Theyï¿½doï¿½requireï¿½anï¿½outsideï¿½influence;ï¿½aï¿½pointï¿½thatï¿½Iï¿½touchedï¿½on.ï¿½Windshieldï¿½wipersï¿½canï¿½notï¿½moveï¿½withoutï¿½outsideï¿½influence. ~ ///Myï¿½opponentï¿½hasï¿½failedï¿½toï¿½mentionï¿½anythingï¿½aboutï¿½howï¿½aï¿½windshieldï¿½wiperï¿½canï¿½beï¿½nonï¿½organicï¿½butï¿½stillï¿½shareï¿½pie./// Windshieldï¿½wipersï¿½canï¿½notï¿½shareï¿½pie,ï¿½anï¿½extraordinaryï¿½claimï¿½madeï¿½withoutï¿½evidenceï¿½canï¿½beï¿½dismissedï¿½withoutï¿½evidence. Iï¿½restï¿½myï¿½case,ï¿½voteï¿½Con.
windsheild wipers are living things too you know..

-"Information that is generally known usually does not require a source to be contended."- to this I have a video... http://www.youtube.com... -"I will however provide a source for this information [1]."- No where in that source did it state that windshields are non organic things.- -"I contend that windshield wipers don't move without outside interference"- If you didn't this would not be a debate.- -"The car must be on for them to function properly and that does not happen unless it is turned on."- The car does not have to be on for them to move. debates not about weather they work properly.- -"This required an outside influence independent from the wiper itself."- (refer to video)- -My opponent has failed to mention anything about how a windshield wiper can be non organic but still share pie.- - I await my opponents relentless assault-
windsheild wipers are living things too you know..

///-I would like to point out that himler has not stated any evidence towards whether windsheild wipers are organic or not..-/// Information that is generally known usually does not require a source to be contended. I will however provide a source for this information [1]. ~ ///-I have returned and have come up with something to say.. windshield wipers move without human interference and also like to share there pie.-/// I contend that windshield wipers don't move without outside interference. The car must be on for them to function properly and that does not happen unless it is turned on. This required an outside influence independent from the wiper itself. [1] http://www.madehow.com...
kirstin hates luke

For one my opponet stated in his first point that we dated. so he can not justify topically . his second point was that I suduces goodard boys into taking me to prom when in fact one goddard boy ask me to prom and we weren't dating . So I did not suduce him. his third point is infact is incorrect. Because he's not Kirstin so he can't declare how I take things. I've answerd all of my following opponets aruguments.
kirstin hates luke

i must rise to oppose the resolution that kirstin hates luke because kirstin in fact loves luke 1)Dating She still wants to date me no way she hates me 2)Seduction She seduces goddard boys into going to prom with her and then breaking up with them 3)Sarcasm i'm not sarcastic she just is irrational and takes everything sarcasticly.. NEW ARGUMENTS 1)Topicality the resolution states kirstin hates luke.. how do we know we're talking about the same kirstin and luke she believes
kirstin hates luke

I stand RESOLVED: Kirstin hates Luke. & now to my points. 1.) I hate Luke because he has no feelings. He does not care about anyone besides himself. I know this because I dated him alot of times. 2.) He seduces other women for the fun of it when he does have girlfriends. this of course is another reason why I hate him. 3.) He's sarcastic towards everyone. he cares not what he does to people. & he does not feel ashamed of his bad doing towards people. So in conclusion: I do hate Luke.
There Ought To Be An International Ban On The Military Use Of Drones

I have two main points: 1. Drone Strikes kill innocent civilian lives 2. Drones create more terrorists than they kill 1. "The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on the 13th of January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the same man who would later become al-Qaeda's leader, this time in Bajaur.R32; Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. But seventy-six innocent children and 29 innocent adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not." [1] "Documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse." [2] My opponent might state that drone strikes help save lives, that they can protect us. But they can't. They take many innocent lives, lives of people who have done nothing wrong. The international community MUST ban armed drones as it is our moral imperative, as humans and citizens of the world, to protect life, and hold it sacred. 2. People who see their loved ones injured or killed in drone attacks become motivated to join actions against the United States. According to author Jeremy Scahill, the vast majority of militants operating in Yemen today are "people who are aggrieved by attacks on their homes that forced them to go out and fight." "Drone strikes take out a few bad guys to be sure, but they also kill a large number of innocent civilians. Given Yemen"s tribal structure, the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies for every AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] operative killed by drones." [3] Even if my previous argument is wrong, we still have a moral imperative to ban armed drones, due to the fact that, even if we accomplish the goal of killing a terrorist, we are simply creating more. Whatever impact the con claims we gain from drone strikes, we merely are creating more problems. [1] http://www.theguardian.com... -Spencer Ackerman (Author) [2] The Intercept, taken from http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] Nabeel Khoury, who was deputy chief of mission in Yemen from 2004 to 2007, taken from http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
There Ought To Be An International Ban On The Military Use Of Drones

Definitions - Ought: A moral imperative, ie. saves lives International: Not only the US, but also the rest of the world. Ban: Merriam-Webster defines ban as to forbid people from using Military Use: Of or relating to the army Drones: Merriam-Webster defines drone as an unmanned aircraft or ship. If agreeable, I would like to limit this topic to armed drones, as those are the most debatable and most often used by foreign military's. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Sources may be provided in the comments 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. First round is for acceptance only 7. Violation of any rules is an automatic loss *Warning* This is my first debate on this site, and therefore might be messy, or unclear. Thanks, and have fun.
A god exists, as defined by PRO; Take 2

1. Thank you. I look forward as well. 2. No. As the PRO side, you carry the burden of proof because it is your claim being debated. If you admit that you are unable to prove God, what use does this debate serve? 3. Your definition of god is vague. Could you please give a more specific definition of God (biblically literal, deistic, etc.) so that I can understand this better? Okay, now onto my opening statement. The existence of a deity is a hypothesis often put forward by countless individuals and groups for millennia. However, lacking any proof behind it (beyond old books, anecdotal evidence and various forms of philosophical snake-oilery), this hypothesis has nothing to stand on. As you yourself said, "...the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved.." which is a valid point. Depending on which version of God you stand by, it may be the case that such a God can actually be disproved; the classic case of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God can be counter-acted with the problem of evil, and so forth. Lacking the burden of proof, I have nothing more to say.
A god exists, as defined by PRO; Take 2

1. AcceptanceI accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I look forward to a good discussion.2. Burden of ProofAs it is quite clear that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, the task of my opponent and myself through the course of this debate will be to present evidence and arguments to support our positions. Thus, the burden of proof will be shared. The winner of this debate shall be selected based on which side brings forward the most convincing arguments. I will present arguments in favor of my position in round 2. 3. Definition of GodAs requested by my opponent, I will provide a definition of God for the purposes of this debate:God: A maximally great being
A god exists, as defined by PRO; Take 2

I initiated an identical debate to this a while back, and wanted to start it again with someone else, so here is (quoted, verbatim) my beginning post of said debate. "In this debate, PRO will attempt to prove the existence of a god, as defined by them. I expect clear, rational arguments and unambiguous definitions. Round 1 will be used for the definition of the word 'god', and of other definitions that may be useful. Round 2 will be for setting one's preliminary stance. Round 3, 4 and 5 will be used for rebuttal of one another's points. Correct English is preferable, but mistakes should not be grammar nazi'd. To make this ABSOLUTELY CLEAR; I am an agnostic atheist. I know that many apologists like to ask their opponents about whether they are agnostic or atheist, which I consider to be something of a silly question. I am atheist because I do not believe in a god, and I am agnostic because I am not 100% certain of my stance. However, I can state, within reasonable doubt, that a god does not exist, which is why I am an agnostic atheist. I hope this is clear to you. Empirical evidence and logical reasoning are the two tools that will be used in this debate. When using evidence, please provide sources, lest the claim is absolutely trivial. When using logical reasoning, please describe your deduction clearly." Cheers!
Technology is making us anti social

As the say the two words, "social media" Here is the definition is some people would like to know. so"cial me"di"a noun noun: social media; plural noun: social medias 1. websites and applications used for social networking. As you can see, yes these sites are for being social with other people. Although through evidence shows as technology gets bigger (including social sites) people don't talk in person as often because of this much more simple way of communication, but almost all if not all people cannot go through life behind a computer screen, or holding a phone towards their face. If they want a job, they would most likely have to be social in person. People say they can get a job to where they don't have to, for example going into computers/gaming, but believe it or not, that is one of the biggest examples of being anti-social. If they just want to work "ONLINE" without being around other "PEOPLE" doesn't that show that they are anti-social? Some people tend to be shy in person, but say your texting them and they come out of their shell and say things that you wouldn't imagine them to say. I think that is mainly because people tend to be comfortable where they are doing it such as their house or in their room or just somewhere by themselves. Or just if nobody else can see what they and the other person is talking about. So being hidden and comfortable with their surroundings is the reason why some people who are always on the internet tend to act different in person, such as being shy because they were anti social in person. Sources: https://www.mediabistro.com... http://www.talentzoo.com... http://www.forbes.com...
Net Neutrality

What my opponent fails to realize is that advertisement is part of the business. Sites such as myspace gain revenue from "McDonalds" wanting to put their ads on the myspace homepage. What my opponent is proposing is regulation of big business. We have been unable to to do anything about it in the real world so we are now trying to do it in the digital world. "The restrictions that a business must avoid" is exactly that. You do have to decide whether to promote the established business or the new and upcoming. Yes, the former may have been the cornerstone of a new field but why not reward them for that.