BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
THW end the War on Drugs

Full resolution: This house would end the War on Drugs. This is going to be a live debate, between Hayd and me. We'll post the video here. Hayd should not accept this debate until the video is uploaded on YouTube. Format: Tejretics (Pro) Hayd (Con) 8 min. Pro's 1st Constructive 2 min. Prep time 8 min. Con's 1st Constructive/rebuttal 2 min. Prep time 7 min. Pro's 2nd Constructive/rebuttal 2 min. Prep time 7 min. Con's 2nd Constructive/rebuttal 2 min. Prep time 5 min. Pro's Final Round 5 min. Con's Final Round Points of information (POIs) are accepted. A point of information is a question posed to the speaker in the middle of the speech. The person who raises the point of information should declare "point," "information," "point of information," "POI," "on that point," or something to that effect, without actually raising the question. The speaker has the right to accept or decline the point; if accepted, the other debater proceeds to ask the question, if declined or ignored the debater must not ask the question. The individual who is speaking controls the time, and therefore can interrupt a POI, ask them to stop the question in the middle and answer it right there, et cetera. To decline a POI, either ignore it or say "no, thank you," or something to that effect. Judges are free to penalize debaters to a very small extent if they accept no point of information, but cannot penalize their answers at all, unless appropriately noted as a concession or a point of clash by a speaker in the text of their speech. Context: This house = the federal government of the United States of America (hereinafter "USFG") Would = should; implies a comparison of the net benefits of upholding and negating the resolution End = put to a stop; debaters are free to introduce their model War on Drugs = the current American campaign of prohibition of drugs, military aid, and military intervention, with the stated aim being to reduce the illegal drug trade Rules: 1) BOP is shared 2) No new arguments in the final round 3) No kritiks or "theory shells" 4) No trolling, deconstruction-based arguments, or abusive semantics 5) Ordinary vote moderation standards apply; view the debate and judge accordingly 6) Con has to defend the status quo due to the definition of "War on Drugs"; the only reasonable counterplans involve a permutation of the status quo and the counterplan (e.g. increased enforcement of drug laws) 7) Accepting this debate is accepting all the rules In-text Structure: R1) Acceptance R2) Pro posts Video; Con posts any comments Judges: YYW, Thett, Zaradi, Whiteflame, Raisor, Bsh1, Subutai
Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat

For one, the treatment of the animals we eat is not the topic of this debate and in fact entirely irrelevant (unless you can prove that treating animals differently will affect their nutritional value). As well just because someone supports eating meat does not mean they necessarily support the conditions in which animals are kept. The images you used didn't support this, their purpose was for shock and awe, something reminiscent of some pro-life protestors. Calories are found in every food, what differs is whether or not they are used up or wasted by not exercising. It is not meat that is the problem, but the eater who does not carefully watch his caloric intake and exercise accordingly. http://www.nhs.uk... Meat also has other nutritional value you failed to address earlier such as protein, iron, niacin, zinc, B12 and others (source previously posted). In conclusion meat is a healthy part of our diet.
Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat

Supporting meat supports those pictures that I shown. Think about those animals they probably feel pain, right? I bet that they want to run free into the wild and be free. No! we use them to feed our fat bodies. I would start eating meat if humans got some respect in animals and actually thought about the danger of farms and went out into the wild and caught our food. I'm not talking about using a shotgun I mean using your bare hands and attacking it to eat at the moment. True Meat Eaters http://frenchtribune.com... http://teachinggardens.files.wordpress.com... http://i4.dailyrecord.co.uk... http://4.bp.blogspot.com... Meat though has a lot of calories and fats. Even the ones at the Grocery store. The Chicken that is in the farm to make a roast not cage free so it is stuck in a cage being fed and gaining pounds. when it hits the slaughter the only weight it loses is the head's strong weight. Now it reaches the fryer and reaches up to around 500 calories, plus all the carbs. http://nutritiondata.self.com... http://www.fatsecret.com...
Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat

Your sources are pictures. Pictures of the conditions in which animals are kept prior to being prepared for consumption by us. While debatably unethical, it is entirely irrelevant to the health aspects meat has on diet. Simply because we treat animals in unnatural ways prior to eating them does not mean that eating them or having meat in our diet is itself unnatural. While meat is the most common food served in fast food restaurants, that doesn't mean that mean is the cause of obesity. That is due to sodium, trans fats, sugar and empty calories present in foods laden with preservatives. http://diet.lovetoknow.com... If it was the meat in fast food restaurants that were the cause of obesity, meat prepared in the home or other restaurants would cause obesity. However it doesn't, meat can be quite healthy (beef itself contains B12, niacin, iron, zinc and selenium). Meat is also very high in protein and thus good for development of bones and muscles. http://authoritynutrition.com...
Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat

Humans are omnivores, we are designed (naturally or by God your choice) to consume meat. It would be Natural if we didn't treat our animals like how we do today. It is 100% natural to hunt and eat it raw like what lions do, but it is also good if you want to eat meat to go to farms who use animals that died of natural causesYou state that we are natural omviores but this is really not natural,http://www.rabbitfur.org...http://2.bp.blogspot.com...Meat is not the cause or even a leading cause of obesity in the United States, What do Most fast food resterants sell? Meat! You cant go to Mcdonald's and get a veggie burger. Yes The Fast Food Industry is the leading cause of obiesty but they all serve meat and fries!
Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat

Right. Humans are omnivores, we are designed (naturally or by God your choice) to consume meat. Here are several sources: https://www.vrg.org... http://education.nationalgeographic.com... http://letthemeatmeat.com... http://www.npr.org... http://veganskeptic.blogspot.ca... http://aboutlifting.com... http://membrane.com... http://www.nobeliefs.com... I hope that's enough. Just because we do not kill the animals we eat naturally does not mean we are not naturally inclined to eat meat. Whether it is ethical is a whole different debate. Meat is not the cause or even a leading cause of obesity in the United States, that would be fast food restaurants. While meat is typically the primary item served on menus in these restaurants it is not the only fat-filled item. Obesity and widespread heart problems in the United States are a result of increased trans-fat and sodium intake, both being very common in the fast food industry. Humans have been eating meat for millenia, why would it only now be causing a massive increase in obesity? That was a rhetorical question, as meat is likely not causing obesity. As a side note, I could point out that vegetarianism and veganism have seen a rise in popularity as obesity has risen. There is likely no correlation and I don't believe there is, but the argument is there. http://www.vegetariantimes.com... http://www.cdc.gov... The last part was a mess but let's address it any ways. P1 - real meat eaters will hunt and kill their prey without a fryer - What about the dogs and cats people have as pets, they do not hunt and kill their prey. Nor do scavenger birds and other wild animals that scavenge. Sc1/P2 - Meat is a big factor of America's obesity rate - I already addressed this in my second paragraph. p.s. That's not a sub-conclusion without a supporting premise. P3 - lots of children Eat more meat than veggies - Let's just assume this is true, according to recent CDC data, the obesity rate amongst children is dropping. http://www.cdc.gov... SC/4 - if we were true omnivores we would have fangs - We do have fangs, they're called canines (I mistakenly called them incisors in my previous argument), and they're located between your incisors and your premolars. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... - Again that was not a sub-conclusion. C- we are not true omnivores and decreasing meat is better for the diet - Since P1 was insufficient, and P2-4 were unacceptable due to contradictory evidence, your conclusion here is moot.
Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat

Thanks for accepting you state that humans are natural omnivores, its natural it we use are bare hands and catch and kill our meat with out any seasonings and without cooking. I never seen a bear come up to the McDonald's drive through to order a Big Mac. They are omnivores that will catch fish out of the water and eat it when its flapping in there jaw! http://upload.wikimedia.org... Meat is a big threat to America's obesity rate. Meat contains lots of fat and, meat is also eating a lot in a day with dinner, (school) lunches and breakfast. I bet theirs someone out there that eats a couple pieces of bacon in the morning then has a hot dog at lunch then goes to McDonald's for dinner. http://nutritiondata.self.com... http://nutritiondata.self.com... http://nutritiondata.self.com... P1 - real meat eaters will hunt and kill their prey without a fryer Sc1/P2 - Meat is a big factor of America's obesity rate P3 - lots of children Eat more meat than veggies SC/4 - if we were true omnivores we would have fangs C- we are not true omnivores and decreasing meat is better for the diet
Vegetarianism is a healthier lifestyle than meat

This will be fun. Let's first define health (healthy is just the act of possessing health). According to dictionary.com the relevant definitions of health are: the general condition of the body or mind with reference to soundness and vigor/soundness of body or mind; freedom from disease or ailment. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) Now human beings are omnivores, we have incisors and can digest meat as well as plants. Humans were designed to consume meat as well as plants. Animals are designed in such a way that their diet provides them good condition of the body and mind, else they wouldn't survive. As omnivores we are designed to eat both plants and meats, by cutting out one it's unnatural and therefore unhealthy. From this we can conclude that having meat in your diet is natural and therefore healthy. I lay this out real simple so you can nitpick easier. P = premise SC = sub-conclusion C = conclusion P1 - human beings are omnivores (we have incisors and can digest meat as well as plants) SC1/P2 - humans were designed to consume mean as well as plants. P3 - animals are designed in such a way that their diet provides them good condition of the body and mind (being healthy) else they wouldn't survive. SC2/P4 - as we are designed to be omnivores, cutting either meat or plants out of the diet of an omnivore is unnatural. C - having meat in your diet (as an omnivore) is therefore natural and healthy, more so than not having meat in your diet. I've gone for short and sweet to keep the argument focused, hope you don't mind.
***History Tournament RND 1:"Worse American President, J.Buchanan vs. A.Johnson"

It appears Con has forfeited. Though I am not sure based on his comments in the comment section. Either way if Con is unable to continue, it was a fun debate on the part of Con. Thanks for playing the game. Now it is time to sum up:President James Buchanan insitigated the Utah War. Buchnanan did nothing to stop the Civil War from taking place. Buchanan did nothing to build up Federal fortifications in the South knowing that the Southern states ad begun to start seperating from the Union. Versus Andrew Johnson who was a president by cicrcumstance rather than choice. Johnson became president when Lincoln was assassinated. As such, Johnson was stuck with a Republican cabinet and a Republican Congress which were uncooperative with him. Johnson himself, did not make any significant poor decisions as president compared to Buchanan. I would state that I have come the conclusion that Buchnan was by far the worse president compared to Johnson. Buchanan was actually responsible for the actions or I pointed out versus Johnson who had to deal with uncooperative Republicans.
Life in prison without parole is preferable to the death penatly.

Prisoners are usually separated by the severity of their crime and in prison their are opportunities for prisoners to improve their lives in prison. Since people are stuck in jail for the rest of their lives looking for the best of the situation is their only option. Another reason to not be pro death penalty is that often times the people who administer the poison are not qualified and cause unnecessary pain. The drug meant to paralyze the guilty man may not be administered correctly and then the person will feel when their heart stops. By torturing people we are no better than the evil we fight against. The appeals process for death row prisoners also takes an immensely long time which clogs up the justice system. But my main reason for being against the death penalty still remains that an "eye for an eye" is not the correct philosophy. To improve society we need to stop trying to get back at each other and instead look to better the community.
Life in prison without parole is preferable to the death penatly.

Prisons very rarely reform a bad person. Criminals don't change when they are in prison. If left in prison without parol the prisoner would be more likely to kill others while in prison and create ruckus throughout the prison. He or she would not care because they will be in jail for their life anyways so they are just going to do what they want. Killing the prisoner would save people who are in prison for minor offenses from the wrath of the killer.
Life in prison without parole is preferable to the death penatly.

There are still people that are being wrongly convicted today. DNA and other evidences are not perfect and can result in errors. By killing people for killing other people we are falling the motto an "eye for an eye." As a society we need to move away from this idea because a revenge philosophy leads to a never ending cycle of violence. Aren't the point of prisons and the death penalty to stop violence? Killing the person responsible does not bring back the victim.
Life in prison without parole is preferable to the death penatly.

The American Civil Liberties Union argued that the "The death penalty costs more, delivers less, and puts innocent lives at risk." Their argument was that, "life without parole provides swift, severe, and certain punishment. It provides justice to survivors of murder victims and allows more resources to be invested into solving other murders and preventing violence. Sentencing people to die in prison is the sensible alternative for public safety and murder victims" families." One reason that the death penalty is preferable is that death row cost two to five times more than regular prison time. Average cases cost $740,000 while cases with the death penalty on average cost $1.26 million. Cost payers have to pay on average $90,000 more for prisoners on death row. Life in prison can also be a stronger deterrent to a crime because people rarely want to sit in prisons their whole life. Killing them is giving them the easy way out. Life in prison also protects against wrongful execution. In California more than 200 innocent people were freed from prison after it was discovered that they were wrongly convicted. The idea that the state could wrongly convict a person is reason enough to oppose the death penalty.
If God created the universe then Monistic Idealism is probably true

I will accept this argument. I'm not fully familiar with this philosophy so I will take this as an opportunity to learn and discuss! Thanks for the debate! I will be arguing that Monistic Idealism does not follow logically as the only result of God's creation of the world. In doing so, I might end up making an argument for an alternative conclusion, such as the conventional theistic view. If so, I will assume burden of proof to prove such a conclusion, but, as a pure negation of Pro's claim, I think BOP is on Pro at this point. He will need to demonstrate that his conclusion is, as he says, "probably" true, which I take to mean that no serious arguments can be brought up that refute it. This weak conclusion (weak meaning it does not assert itself strongly) may be easier to prove for Pro, in which case I might assume BOP on my own conclusion. All yours, Pro! Feel free to comment if I have misunderstood anything about the debate or your terms.
If God created the universe then Monistic Idealism is probably true

God will be defined as the grand-mind which is the cause and creator of all things that are not God (such as the universe). Monistic Idealism is simply the view that only mentality exists, and that there is no such thing as something "outside of mind". The conventional theistic view is that God created a material universe, and that God is immaterial (this is Dualism as you have the material and immaterial). I will attempt to show why this view is nonsensical, and that the view that Monistic Idealism entails from God's creation is the most rational view.
If God created the universe then Monistic Idealism is probably true

IntroductionI apologize for forfeiting a round, I got really busy and didn't have time unfortunately. Either way, I hope I will be able to get a point across and win the argument.Idealism:"In philosophy, Idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental..." [1]ArgumentIf God created the universe, then there were 3 ways he could have done it:1. God created the universe out of nothing [2]2. God created the universe out of something that is not God [3]3. God created the universe out of himself [4]Ruling out 1We can rule out 1, as the very idea of that is nonsensical. God's will had to act on something in order for the universe to manifest, this something would be the causal connection from God to the universe. However, if God created the universe out of nothing, then there is no causal link to the physical universe from God's intention. To create a universe, causality is required by definition, but there is no causal connection if the universe was created from nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. If all that exists is God and his contents, then nothing else could possibly exist. 2 Leads to 3If God created the universe out of something that is not God, then that something that is not God must have came from God either directly or indirectly (as everything that is not God is God's creation according to his definition). Eventually, there had to have been a first thing that is not God created by God that would have either have had to come from nothing, or from God. Since we have ruled out the universe coming from nothing then 2 leads to 3 being the last option.Concluding 33 is the only viable option...God must have created the universe out of himself, as there would be nothing else to create a universe from. However, God is a Grand-Mind by definition, meaning that to create from himself would be to create from his mental content. Thus, the universe is composed of God's mental content, as the universe is just a manifestation of mind. If God, the universe, and everything else is mental (which it would all have to be if it manifests from a mind) then Idealism is probably true, if not necessarily true. Everything is composed of and reduces to aspects of God's mental, as there would be nothing else for the universe to be composed of. ConclusionNow, I am not saying that God created the universe, just that, if he did, the universe reduces to aspects of his mental as that is what the universe would be made out of. I think I showed that to be the most reasonable view. I also did not respond to his last round as he was attacking arguments for Idealism that aren't really relevant here (which isn't really his fault). Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.theopedia.com...[3] http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com...[4] https://supernaturalgospel.wordpress.com...http://www.youtube.com...
If God created the universe then Monistic Idealism is probably true

Pro has not provided any arguments to show his reasoning. He has BoP at this point, as he is attempting to demonstrate why Monistic Idealism is the most likely scenario. While reading up on the subject, I believe I have gained a better understanding of what Pro will be arguing. From his definition of Monistic Idealism (which is shared by the resources I have checked), he will need to prove at least these two points: 1 - there is no material world and that our sensory experiences are merely illusions of some sort 2 - that consciousness, or the mind, which Pro is arguing is the only component of existence, is not at all dependent on biological processes (in other words, that consciousness does not negate his assertion that there is no materialism) One major issue I have with arguments for Monistic Idealism, as well as many other arguments that more or less fall under the category of Ontological arguments, is that they tend to rely heavily on "a priori" assertions. These statements typically describe a way that things are, or a way in which the world works. A priori statements are often described as "something you can just look at and know it is true", and it follows that they might be good for arguments. However, when arguing for the nature of God, or the nature of the metaphysical world, these statements are not as convincing. Such statements that Pro might be assuming for this argument might be: 1 - the world might as well be seen as mentality, as we cannot step outside of our own minds to be sure 2 - our perceptions are not always functional or credible, and so it should not be trusted that there is a material world 3 - if God is a "grand-mind" that is the creator of all things, God would create that which he is most like, namely, our minds These assertions do not hold up to scrutiny. They all might be true, and if you already believe them, you will be more likely to believe the argument that follows. However, if someone begins an argument by telling me that the world is immaterial because we cannot prove that it isn't (as we are only inside our minds and perception cannot be trusted), they have already lost me. This claim might be true, but it is unsubstantiated in their argument, and so they have committed the "Appeal to Ignorance" Fallacy. Many of these statements strike me as what would be called "food for thought", in that they are interesting and lead to many avenues of cognition. However, while they might be cool to talk about or ponder, it is quite difficult to substantiate them, and possibly impossible to do so. I will await further arguments from Pro, as there are two rounds left, and I am interested in the justification for this case. However, I am anticipating some assumptions and conditions for the argument that will not hold up to scrutiny. Here are some links to resources I used: http://en.wikipedia.org... (look under Classical Idealism for a mention of Monistic Idealism) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...