azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

What do you mean? He put it on his site, I would think he would believe it. Am I missing something from your response?
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

caffeine over dose... (From stress, ulcers, and triggering irregular heartbeats, etc) - 1,000 to 10,000 deaths per year
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

I'd implore you to read my post again. I wasn't attacking marijuana, and I believe the war on drugs is... a war on DRUGS in general, not just weed.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

So let me get this straight...you're for the side that wants to keep the war on drugs to include cannabis, but then made an argument that cannabis legalization wouldn't affect the war on drugs? If so, then your missing the point: the war on drugs doesn't have to include marijuana. That's why we're debating.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

Please, for the love of god look at the title of the debate. We're debating about putting an end to the war on drugs. Stop acting so smarmy.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

Did you read the description that went along with the title? This is specifically about marijuana.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

I hate you people.Weed is a bad substance, just as bad as alcohol, its banned now, unbanning it will just give people another excuse to bitch at the government and allow a gateway for advocates of drugs to try to get other drugs legalized, like steroids.Yadda yadda yadda. The legalization of pot isn't just a small matter, it's a beacon for trouble from other substances.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

What evidence do you have to support the statement "Weed is a bad substance, just as bad as alcohol"? This is simply not true:http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/ 24/53/ You seem to have a personal problem with pot and it's users....did something happen to you at some point in time to cause this prejudice?
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

I have a problem with all drug users and anyone with a brain should have a prejudice against them. They kill braincells and wither the body.And no, nothing happened to me. I'm just not retarded.A drug is a drug, plain and simple. Don't use them.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

That's just simply ignorant. Do a bit of research and prove to me what your saying is true. Like most things in this world, it's really not that black and white.Since you haven't shown me any evidence to support your statements, I'll show you a list of 'drug users' you may not have known existed:http://www.friendsofcannabis.com/directory/index.php?option=com_alphacontent&Itemid=58 http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

Actualy its proven that marijuana does not kill braincells.... in fact if anything recently it has been shown to be HEALTHY for your brain.. Recent studies have shown that a chemical found in marijuana reduced the size of cancerous brain tumors in lab mice
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

No marijuana does not kill brain cells, this has been disproved time and time again. The only study that proved anything about the relationship between marijuana and brain cells showed that it hinders the growth of cancers brain cells while leaving healthy ones alone.I'm assuming since you are against the legalization of marijuana just because "a drug is a drug, plain and simple," that you support the prohibition of alcohol and marijuana.And what exactly do you define as a drug? Just something that is illegal? Then your argument is even less intelligent. It should be illegal because it is illegal?
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

Actualy Drugs dont do this... Prohibition creats a black market for drugs... If they were legal and the government focused on harm reduction, there would be less of a problem. Look at the netherlands... Drugs have been legal for a quite a while now and results have been nothing but successful. Oh and if you want a more American example... look at alcohol prohibition...
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

Never legalize. Legalizing does not solve the problem but indeed makes the problem worse, end of story.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

This is not the first time that drugs have been illegal, and it will not be the first time that the have been legalized. Consider the 18th and 21st amendments, which prohibited and legalized alcohol, respectively. The 18th amendment caused the rise of organized crime, and thousands of people died from drinking wood alcohol. With the 21st amendment, much of that went away.Something similar will probably happen with Cannabis and other drugs. Once they can be regulated by the FDA and sold in reputable stores, the amount of crime will go down and quality will go up.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

Again, the drug use in Amsterdam is lower than it is here. Given your argument, how do you explain this?References: http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

Yea and you know this by experience? Last time I checked... when we ended prohibiton on alcohol, crime dropped drasticly... You dont know what your talking about
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: Continue the war on drugs

Still, you're going to have crime because people will sell it on their own by making their own. It's like software piracy, they buy the original and make copies of it and sell it, THAT'S CRIME STUPID.
Debate: U.S. should put an end to war on drugs, legalize pot?
Side: End the war on drugs, legalize

yea? and whats wrong with that? millions of people brew thier own alcoholic beverages... and software piracy is completely different than growing something.. software piracy is stealing... growing herb for your own consumption is victimless.... STUPIDmaybe a select few will happen to circumvent the law... but are you retarded? look at american history with alcohol prohibition... CRIME RATES DROPPED.... look at the netherlands when they legalized drugs 20 years ago... CRIME RATES DROPPED and also DRUG CONSUMPTION DROPPED... Sorry but your argument is full of flaws and is speculative.... in fact i havnt seen you give me one cold hard fact, statistic, or referance
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Actually, the human anatomy suggests that we are more adapted to be vegetarians, or in other words, 'herbivores'. We are equipped with molars, which are actually meant for grinding and chewing plant matter, and our digestive tract is more similar to that of herbivores. So biologically, homo sapiens are supposed to be vegetarians, but for some unknown reasons along the evolution line, meat started coming into their diets.Also, meat has been linked with the rising number of cases of those with cholesterol problems, heart problems, deep-vein thrombosis, obesity, so on and so forth, due to the traces of fat that is naturally present in the meat. Yes, the fact that potatoes can be fried and eaten in the form of potato chip, fries, etc., does contribute slightly to the health problems now, but the 'impact' of such food tend to be more subtle than that brought about by the consumption, especially over-consumption of meat.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

We are equipped with molars, which are actually meant for grinding and chewing plant matter, and our digestive tract is more similar to that of herbivores. So biologically, homo sapiens are supposed to be vegetarians,We are also equipped with canines and incisors, which are adapted to tearing and rending meat. So biologically, homo sapiens are supposed to be vegetarians, but for some unknown reasons along the evolution line, meat started coming into their diets.Meat was instrumental in the evolution of the species. It was impossible to sustain a large brain without consuming meat.Also, meat has been linked with the rising number of cases of those with cholesterol problems, heart problems, deep-vein thrombosis, obesity, so on and so forth, due to the traces of fat that is naturally present in the meat.That is untrue. Meat is actually very healthy, if eaten in appropriate amounts. Obesity is caused by overconsumption, most heart problems are induced by the oils meats are cooked in, not the meat.Yes, the fact that potatoes can be fried and eaten in the form of potato chip, fries, etc., does contribute slightly to the health problems nowIt actually contributes massively.but the 'impact' of such food tend to be more subtle than that brought about by the consumption, especially over-consumption of meat.Over-consumption of anything is by definition bad for you.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

cavemen, the first people ate meat and how can we argue againstthat
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Being a vegetarian is healthier for you and is better from a moral standpoint.But Damn, it's hard to do so thats why I eat meat on occasion.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Being a vegetarian is healthier for you and is better from a moral standpoint.Why is it healthier? We are omnivores, not herbivores. Also, why is it moral?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Because of the cholesterol and saturated fat in the meat is bad for... there is no denying that.For the moral argument. The meat industry is known for it's horrid conditions for raising animals for meat... we're subjecting living creatures to pain for pretty close to frivolous causes
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Technically, plants are living organisms...................................
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Yes, but they don't feel pain as the typical animals would.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

You should check out the film Food Inc. it is like a modern day The Jungle, really shows how disturbing the food industry is. Still isn't going to stop me from eating burgers though ;)
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

You realize that documentaries like that will only show you the worst of the worst and try to convince you that that is what they are all like.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Sorry...meant to support you...............................
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

If you don't want a lot of fat in your meat, then get better cuts with less fat on it. I have seen Food Inc, but it's not going to make me stop eating meat.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Because of the cholesterol and saturated fat in the meat is bad for... there is no denying that.That depends on how it is prepared, the cut of meat, the type of animal, etc.Also, it can be a good thing depending upon type of civilisation, hunter-gatherers for example would benefit from the extra fat. But in our civilisation it isn't beneficial.For the moral argument. The meat industry is known for it's horrid conditions for raising animals for meat... we're subjecting living creatures to pain for pretty close to frivolous causesThis is a highly variable argument, however. Because some of the animals process pain closer to stimuli response on one end of the spectrum to emotional pain on the other end. There are also very different conditions between farms and industries, including slaughter methods.I think the argument you are making is one against industrial meat production, not against meat eating.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

I guess it all does depend on what kind of meat you eat I'll give you that... but still most cuts of meat do have unhealthy components.I'm just stating what the benefits of Vegetarianism are and why it is a better eating habit... on a health based issue and on a moral based one because there are still the moral argumentsThese don't stand for everybody I'll admit that, but they do stand for me
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

I'm just stating what the benefits of Vegetarianism are and why it is a better eating habit... on a health based issue and on a moral based one because there are still the moral argumentsThat's fine, but there's still one important thing: we're omnivores, so even making a moral case and health case, you would need to argue how we're supposed to be able to transition into a diet we're not evolved for.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Just because we're capable of eating meat doesn't mean we're "supposed" to. In the caveman days, when food was hard to come by, yes, meat consumption may have been necessary for survival. But that time is long gone.One can be completely healthy without ever eating meat. It's not even hard to do so. See the links in my main argument for proof.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Just because we're capable of eating meat doesn't mean we're "supposed" to. In the caveman days, when food was hard to come by, yes, meat consumption may have been necessary for survival. But that time is long gone.I wasn't making the argument that we are supposed to eat meat. That implies we were ordained for the purpose. I am stating that meat is part of our dietary profile. In other words, a diet without meat is harder to balance for our bodies because we developed under an environment where it wasn't necessary. To use an analogy, one can take a fish from the sea and raise it in a basin of water, but in that case you have to account for the pH, specific gravity of the water, light, temperature and so on where the native environment already takes care of that.One can be completely healthy without ever eating meat. It's not even hard to do so. See the links in my main argument for proof.I never said you couldn't, just that it's more difficult. You must also realise that the vegetarian (vegan) lifestyle cuts out animal products which make superior-tasting foods (again, either exceptionally difficult to recreate without animal products, or impossible due to food chemistry).A minor topic nobody raised was that the animals we keep as pets are carnivores, meaning that they can't switch to vegan diets at all. They're evolved to be dependant upon meat.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

"a diet without meat is harder to balance for our bodies"That just isn't true. Show me some research that supports that claim. Here's a comprehensive review that demonstrates the opposite:http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/ 3/516S#FN2 "vegetarian (vegan)"Vegetarian and vegan are not the same thing. Vegetarians don't eat meat, but they may eat animal products such as milk or eggs. Vegans are more extreme - they avoid anything that requires the exploitation of animals.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

That just isn't true. Show me some research that supports that claim. Here's a comprehensive review that demonstrates the opposite:That review demonstrates the health between vegetarians and nonvegetarians. In the study, I saw nothing specifying the diet habits of the nonvegetarians. They instead focused on things like smoking, eating fish instead of beef, etc. The vegetarians were selected from avenues which would have a higher chance of them being good dieters.As for living as a vegetarian, you have to eat products with care to them not having meat, and you have to take care with regards to your amino acid intake and vitamin intake. Arguing this point with me is like arguing that living Kosher isn't more difficult than eating anything. A restrictive diet will always take more care.Vegetarian and vegan are not the same thing. Vegetarians don't eat meat, but they may eat animal products such as milk or eggs. Vegans are more extreme - they avoid anything that requires the exploitation of animals.I know the difference, I was trying to include both in my sentence.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

"The vegetarians were selected from avenues which would have a higher chance of them being good dieters."What are you talking about? The first sentence of the abstract states that they controlled for that: "...compare the death rates from common diseases of vegetarians with those of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles"."you have to eat products with care to them not having meat"Only if you want to be strict about it. Even a slight effort is better than no effort at all. Killing one animal isn't as bad as killing ten."and you have to take care with regards to your amino acid intake and vitamin intake"It's not hard at all. Dairy products contain full amino acids. So does soy. There are many combinations of non-meat products which give you full amino acids: beans and tortillas, peanut butter sandwich, macaroni and cheese, just to name a few examples. You should be eating a variety of foods anyway.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

What are you talking about? The first sentence of the abstract states that they controlled for that: "...compare the death rates from common diseases of vegetarians with those of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles".You're taking that too literally. What it meant was similar lifestyles with regards to variables to measured like smoking. No where in the study did it mention whether they matched people based upon heath-consciousness or diet-carefulness.Only if you want to be strict about it. Even a slight effort is better than no effort at all. Killing one animal isn't as bad as killing ten.Remember that we're talking about effort here. A restrictive diet by default takes more effort because you must abstain from something.It's not hard at all. Dairy products contain full amino acids. So does soy. There are many combinations of non-meat products which give you full amino acids: beans and tortillas, peanut butter sandwich, macaroni and cheese, just to name a few examples. You should be eating a variety of foods anyway.Remember, you're abstaining from animal products. Soy can cause hypothyroidism, and there are a significant number of people allergic to it. Beans are a good meal, but lack Methionine in good quantities. Most pastas, flours and such are pure carbohydrates with little nutrition to them.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Well, soy is a pretty damn useful plant. From soy products we get the necessary protein that we would normally get from meat.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Well, soy is a pretty damn useful plant. From soy products we get the necessary protein that we would normally get from meat.That's true. It has a PDCAAS score of 0.91 which is very high. However it is also one of the types of foods that people are more commonly allergic to, and we must also remember that it cannot substitute the flavours and textures of a number of foods we are accustomed to eating.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

... yeah you got me on the allergy argument...But honestly how important is flavor?
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

... yeah you got me on the allergy argument...But honestly how important is flavor?Flavour is the reason we have cooking and don't simply eat food that is salted or dried for preservation. In other words, very important.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

soy is also one of the types of foods that people are more commonly allergic toYeah, if you're allergic to a food, then don't eat it, it's a no brainer. Soy isn't the only protein rich plant. There's also peanut butter and most dairy products such as cheese and things.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Yeah, if you're allergic to a food, then don't eat it, it's a no brainer. Soy isn't the only protein rich plant. There's also peanut butter and most dairy products such as cheese and things.Vegetarians can't eat cheese. Also soy can cause hypothyroidism.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Vegetarians can't eat cheeseNo, you're talking about vegans. Vegans don't eat cheese. Vegetarians on the other hand are a little different as they do eat animal products other than meat.Also soy can cause hypothyroidism.So can pregnancy, radiation treatments to the neck area (if you needed to treat cancer), for the rest you can Google it. The major risk factors are if you're over 50 years old or female. Consuming soy never gave me no hypo-nuthin'.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

Last time I checked omnivores can eat both vegetables and meat, they don't have to eat both. Monks and vegans don't die from eating just plant matter.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Non vegetarianism

Last time I checked omnivores can eat both vegetables and meat, they don't have to eat both. Monks and vegans don't die from eating just plant matter.They could die from eating just plant matter.
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

The world could end. That's not an argument though :) .................
Debate: Vegetarianism vs Non vegetarianism
Side: Vegetarianism

The meats we consume are the results of animal husbandry, which our bodies are not accustomed to. (speaking from an evolutionary perspective of human genetics)Plants, those that have not been genetically modified by humans from 1950-current, are better for our nutritional needs and have far greater health benefits. There is much evidence linking the eating of "greens" to providing 90%+ the nutrients we need to provide a healthy living structure. I would argue that meats that do not come from the result of animal husbandry, also known as wild, have far more benefit. Furthermore, if these meats come from an environment that has the least amount of contaminants it would be the most beneficial- as your body would not require the energy to detoxify as well as any possible genetic change that could result in later in disease.*Vegetarianism is different than being Vegan. I'm more inclined to practice a 80-20 or 70-30 type diet whereas the first number is the percent of plant based consumption and the later is animal based in your diet.