BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Veganism is Unhealthy and Unjustifiable

Good luck and good debate. 1. Health Benefits - "A recent study indicated that the average vegan diet is higher in vitamin C and fibre, and lower in saturated fat than one containing meat. In addition, statistics show that vegans have a lower BMI (height-to-weight ratio) than meat eaters " in other words, they are skinnier."[1] 2 Weight Loss - "According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a division of the CDC, the National Centre for Health Statistics, 64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes. A study conducted from 1986 to 1992 by Dean Ornish, MD, president and director of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, found that overweight people who followed a low-fat, vegetarian diet lost an average of 24 pounds in the first year and kept off that weight 5 years later. They lost the weight without counting calories or carbs and without measuring portions or feeling hungry."[2] 3. Longer Life - "If you switch from the standard American diet to a vegetarian diet, you can add about 13 healthy years to your life, says Michael F. Roizen, MD, author of The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat. 'People who consume saturated, four-legged fat have a shorter life span and more disability at the end of their lives. Animal products clog your arteries, zap your energy and slow down your immune system. Meat eaters also experience accelerated cognitive and sexual dysfunction at a younger age.'[3] [1] http://www.jamieoliver.com... [2] http://www.vegetariantimes.com... [3] Ibid
Veganism is Unhealthy and Unjustifiable

A vegan diet is not justifiable. It is against human nature, and results in health deficiencies. I'm going to keep this as brief as I can, so I'll get straight to it. Here are five reasons veganism is not justified 1. Humans have evolved to be omnivores. One definition of omnivorous is "eating both animal and plant foods." [1]. In general, humans fit this definition. This means that it is against our very nature to eat exclusively plant foods 2. Humans are responsible for most of the animals producing animal products existing. A reason provided for stopping consumption of animal products is that "every vegan saves more than 100 animals per year" [2]. Actually, our consumption of animal products creates the lives of animals. If humans stopped eating animal products, cows, chickens, turkeys and more animals would stop being bees by us, which would dramatically decrease population. Yes, animals are locked up by us, but consumption of animal products is the reason many exist. 3. Vegans have health defects. Many vegans claim that all nutrients gained from animals can be replaced with plants. This is not the case. Take B12, an important vitamin for brain and the blood. A 1982 study shows that 92% of vegans who don't take vitamin supplements are deficient in it [3]. Vegans are also deficient in creatine, which means they may have muscle and brain problems [4]. Surely it is justified to eat something if it stops bad health problems. 4. Eating animals is bad for the environment, but so is eating plants. Some proponents of veganism say that they refuse to eat animal products because they harm the environment. However, the cultivation of plants also hurts it hugely. Pesticide in plants runs off into water supplies and damages the food chain [5]. Thus, these vegans are hypocritical if they eat plants at all. 5. Having kids on a vegan diet is irresponsible. Breast milk given by a vegan mother has been shown to be deficient in DHA. Giving soy products to toddlers inhibits growth. Vegans are harming their kids by the foods they eat.[6] Once again, good luck to any challenger, and may we have an excellent debate. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.peta.org... [3]http://www.karger.com... [4]http://journals.cambridge.org... [5]http://www.toxicsaction.org... [6]http://www.nytimes.com...
RESOLVED: Christianity is Beneficial to the Individual Man

At the last second my opponent in the Tournament contacted me on DDO, with an idea for a topic. I would prefer to debate something else, but as this is pretty much the last second...okay. This is what we will debate. I'm assuming that since my opponent contacted me on this Site, he wants for the Debate to take place on this Site. I hope that this doesn't violate any rules. So, without any further delay... First Round is for Acceptance. Burden of Proof is on Pro, though I usually prefer to share the BoP with my opponent in my debates. In the last round no new arguments will be presented by either side; rebuttals only. If these rules are satisfactory to my opponent, I wait for him to accept.
Oryus is a Thief and the Debate.org Voters are Forgers

My opponent is a female. All females who accept this debate must agree to the definitions I provide. My opponent will also agree to not use semantics. Everything on this debate must be on topic. No posting nonsense or off-topic arguments or ideas. A thief is someone who steals something.A forgerer is someone who does something with the intent to deceive. My opponent is a thief. She used semantics to steal my victory in this debate. The resolution was clearly true.The voters are forgers. They did something (voted) with the intent to deceive (to make it seem like I lost the debate).In conclusion, Oryus is a thief and a troll. http://www.debate.org...
Germany and Japan could have won WWII if it weren't for Hitler and Yamato

These are hypothetical situations. They cannot be proven true. I'm not going to get in hypothetical outcomes of battles again, because the reality is that their economies couldn't support a war effort that size. The economy doesn't work like a video game where you capture a country and instantly use those resources to capture another. Germany, Italy and Japan were totalitarian states. This means that the government forces control over the market. You will never ever in a million years win a war if you controll every aspect of your economy. People look at the Soviet Union as the best counter argument for thes, but in 1990 the Soviet Union collapsed because of economic reasons. Another reason is innovation. In a free market, anyone can submit an idea to make the war swing in favor of their side. The p51, b29, flamethrower and rocket Sherman tanks are just a few examples. In the private sector, the goal is to design weapon to be effective and cheap, without risking the lives of the soldiers. You don't see much innovation in the Axis armies. Those are facts. In the hypothetical war anything could have happened, but the reality paints a much different picture.
Germany and Japan could have won WWII if it weren't for Hitler and Yamato

Ok here are some things you should understand: The Africa Korps was never gonna break through Montgomery's lines. The Germans had been fighting for almost a year, and the Italians long before that. Monty was not going to break. And Rommel was never going to see any oil in the Middle East. No general in the German army would ever have defeated the Soviet Union. (Espically since it was being supplied with USA weapons) Great Britain was not going to be bombed into submission. Check the stats of German losses during the Battle of Britain. If Germany kept that up, there would be no Luftwaffe, and that would make it 1000x easier for Soviet forces to march West. Japan did not have the economy to compete with the United States it doesn't matter if they had the resources, they don't have the economy to pull it off. Remember the whole reson Japan bombed the USA is because stopped shipping oil to them. And if you think Japan was going to oust Chang Ki Shek and Mao Zaedong from China, then you need to go read over some history books. And there is no way Britain was going to stand by and watch their largest piece of land (Australia) get taken over and not do anything about it. And the USA would never collapse in a few months. Even the Japanese didn't dare try it. Americans don't take to kindly to being subjugated. But all of your hypothetical scenarios would never happen. Neither Germany, Japan and Italy had the economies for a victory. That's something you should research.
Germany and Japan could have won WWII if it weren't for Hitler and Yamato

The German industry and economy could never outlast the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union. And Japan's naval and aircraft capacity was next to nothing in contrast to The United States. It wouldn't have mattered who was leading the Axis powers at the time. Rommel was unable to hold Africa, Italy surrendered shortly after the Allied invasion in 43, and the Soviet Union was pushing back at the Germans with their new T-34s. Add to that the fact that the US Navy defeated 4 Japanese aircraft carriers at Midway, the Soviets ousted the German 6th army at Stalingrad, US and British bombers bombing strategic targets in Germany day and night, the discontinuation of German heavy tanks and their projects in 44, the Allied landings in Normandy, the collapse of the Vichy French, the US victories on Sipan, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, the liberation of France and the defeat of the last major German armored divisions in the Ardennes, and the Soviet captures of Odessa, Leningrad, Warsaw and Berlin, the death of Admiral Yamato, and the two nuclear bombs dropped on Japan. The Axis were foolish to try anything against the Allies, and they paid the price.
is calgary alberta better than ardire

Simply stating that because it has a bigger population it is better makes no sense whatsoever. War-torn Kabul in Afghanistan has a population of 3,476,000, Mogadishu in Somalia, which is at Civil War has a population of 1,353,000 , but the fabulous Abu Dhabi in Qatar, which has hosted the Grand Prix and is fairly stunning has 921,000. Venice in Italy, looks amazing, is amazing and is visually stunning has 270,660 people. Population means nothing. Calgary is more cosmopolitan, however it is that bit more rural, and generally, rural areas, or areas with a substantial amount of grassland is more peaceful, serene and slows things down. Things are more likely cheaper in Airdrie and I live in U.K, so if you follow this article, http://metro.co.uk... you will see that Aldrie follows the look and feel of these places whereas Calgary reflects a London-like environment, and in this day and age of stress and worry, peace is something that we need.
is calgary alberta better than ardire

Anyway. "I know that aridrie is being affected by Calgary crime and is still no different from Calgary. the way I see it is that aridrie is starting to become like Calgary with all its crimes the resion I say that is Calgary police and the R. C. M. P are stepping up and making it harder on all the criminals in the Calgary area. " Maybe so, but for an area X be affected by crime from area Y you can deduce that that area X has crime which can't be controlled as much, no matter how much the force are doing and also that area Y is open for crime, meaning there isn't as much of a force or there was never a need, and why would there never be a need? As it has less crime and is safer, and is a reason it is better. Sorry this debate was so shambolic, I know absolutely nothing about these areas and wanted to test my luck. I still think my arguments are more convincing however, but thank you for actually reading this.
bands

Ok, you have chosen Bring the horizon. I believe that I am pro Black veil brides. Lets go!For future reference, BVB means the band, BLACK VEIL BRIDESIt seems that what most of what you have said is based on your opinions, especially since you have not provided any sources. The topic which you have chosen is "who is better...". I don't think that you have provided good arguments in which you have said: "bring me the horizon is ok but the lead is preety good looking." I don't think that a band should be compared by the terms of "which band is better" by the physical characteristics of the band members. For all I care, Say if there was a musician/ or a member of a band with physical deformities, and this person had created much "better" music which was "revolutionary" and would easily top any other's music, I would still say that this person was a better musician than another band/ musician, regardless of any physical characteristics. "and bvb is basicly a screaming band"Once again, this just seems like a personal opinion. It seems a little vague.. Because the BOP in this debate is shared, I will have to argue for BVB and against "Bring Me The Horizon". I will do so now. One of my main points, is that:Awards: Despite Bring Me The Horizon being older in terms of origins, BVB is newer in age and has achieved a multitude of awards, both major and minor awards. BVB has recieved far more awards than Bring me the horizon. If I may point out, awards are good indicators of a bands capabilities and skills etc. Some awards affiliated with Kerrang, Loudwire and MTV.I will extend and add more to my arguments in the next round. I look forward to my opponents responce.http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.bringmethehorizon.co.uk...http://www.blackveilbrides.net...
No other Character in Marvel could beat the Hulk with a few specified exceptions (see in argument)

This is really fun. I can't wait to see any curveball you can throw.Scenario 1 (Defense:) Although Gravage Hulk is smarter that Savage, he is not as smart as you make him out to be [1]. "Gravage Hulk" is mostly a fan term and was used for stories until much later, and was based on a a part of Hulk's run during the silver age of comics. He would probably be just as smart as Magnus, and unless you can prove this wrong, I will base part of my argument on it.As for the gamma radiation, one of Magnus's powers is controlling radiation, so I doubt it would affect him. And also, since Hulk gets stronger as he gets angrier, after transforming from Banner (which I assume this debate will take place with him the least angry he can get,) he will still fight Magnus. There is no way he will be angry enough to destroy the planet right off the bat. What he will do is fight like a hulk, and he will turn to steel on contact.When the steel is spreading, first of all, how is he going to be able to cut off the limb so quickly? He would most likely be confused or shocked. Also my sources call the Hulks durability demi-godlike. Although Hulk is known for his strength, it no where near matches his durability, which also increases with his anger. How will Hulk be able to cut off a limb on a barren planet with his hand? How will he be able to do it in a matter of seconds (Once it spreads to the organs, which cannot regenerate with metal in their place?) Even if Magnus is killed from Hulk's blow, the debate is whether he can beat Hulk, now whether he can beat hulk and still stay alive.Now if Magnus is alive, however, and the Hulk somehow found a way to stop the infection, Magnus can still control the metal part of his body. So Magnus will slow the hulk down, and touch the hulk right over his heart. In less then a second he is dying, without his regen to help him. Scenario 2 (Rebuttal:) Like I said before, Hulk is not at his full anger yet, since this is the first move of the battle. So the speed won't be that fast, and the punch won't be that strong. Also, once he touches Magnus's skin, he better find a way to stop it pretty fast, because it is spreading (as the powers are depicted in exiles #1[1] http://www.leaderslair.com...;
No other Character in Marvel could beat the Hulk with a few specified exceptions (see in argument)

LOL Yes I understand I'm better with rebuttal as well that's why I normally let my opponent go first :P (please don't take emoticons as misspelling or any other points against if you will). Scenario 1 (Rebuttal): The version of the hulk chosen to fight Magnus is Gravage Hulk. Gravage Hulk is the Mixture of the Grey Hulk and Savage Hulk persona giving the Hulk the intelligence of The 3rd smartest person in the world Bruce Banner, now even with said intelligence it would not be likely that Bruce Banner would be able to predict that Touching Magnus turns the opponent to steel however one of the abilities shown by Green Scar (enraged version of Gravage) is that The Hulk recently lived up to his "Worldbreaker" title by destroying a world not by attacking it, but rather from the huge amounts of gamma energy he was releasing because of his anger, he didn't even try to destroy it, it was an accident! Thus I believe that with the huge amounts of Gamma radiation that he emits the steel would probably either be reversed or blown off his body as well he has re-genitive factor that is higher than even that of Wolverine's so he should be able to renew whatever cells that were turned to steel. Or simply stop the "infection" by cutting off and growing back any limbs severed. Scenario 2: Running to Magnus in the blink of an eye (speeds higher than the base of 700mph with how angry he gets) The Hulk simply one punch K.O's Magnus (note: his punch destroyed an asteroid twice the size of earth as well as knocked back and injured the Blob) facing ill effects of one touch against Magnus skin. I look forward to your rebuttal. All info on the hulk taken from marvel universe wiki as well as various comic sections I can depict upon request.
No other Character in Marvel could beat the Hulk with a few specified exceptions (see in argument)

The character I will choose to fight the hulk is Magnus. His abilities include the power to manipulate magnetic fields, radiation, heat, and radio waves. Also, when any lifeform touches his skin, it turns to steel. [1]How the hulk will be beatenScenario 1: is a hybrid of Magneto and Rogue, he would likely have the intellegence of Magneto. While Magnus would plane in that little time before battle, Hulk would charge right off the bat. Hulk has super-strength. Unless he uses his sonic claps (which, due to his intellegence, he probably won't start out with) he would have to touch the guy. Then and there he would turn to steal. No matter how many nuclear explosions he survives, his durability won't help against that. And Magnus's other powers (heat control, magnetic, radiation) would also be able to confuse the hulk for a short while. [1]The Marvel Encyclopedia (published in 2008, with a forward from Stan Lee)I look forward to your response. (Sorry, I'm not that good with first arguments. I work better whent there is something to rebuttal! )
No other Character in Marvel could beat the Hulk with a few specified exceptions (see in argument)

The Hulk and the person of my opponent's choosing will be on a barren planet with no other life forms on it for them to "play in" (as hulk always does) The form of hulk i am able to change at will to match the level of difficulty of the Character he has to face (Gravage, Joe fix it, The Maestro, etc) The opponent is allowed to leave a character and pick up another character if he/she so wishes to change their mind. No more than one character. Character's not allowed (as yes i will concede, that these character's would beat the hulk): -The One above all -The Beyonder -The Living Tribunal -Any Embodiments (Lord Chaos, Master Order, Death, etc) -Proteus -Odin (unless for the purposes and intent for the debate my opponent agrees to take away Odin's power of immortality) I will allow My opponent the first round.
Terrible Fan Fiction Challenge!

My opponent has not followed the rules which gives reason to vote for me. Also their have been many non-debate but fun posts out hear: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... This was suppose to be rather fun for people to get engaged in literature and decide which ones are the worst. Again the rules are quote: "Hello! What is this challenge? A terrible fan fiction challenge! Here are the rules! My opponent and I will each put one fan fiction story that the think is terrible in each round. Based on who has more terrible fan fics than the others will decide who the winner is!" So one fan fiction each round then the voter decides out of all the fan fiction who has the worst fan fiction stories and votes for that person. My opponent just did not listen to the rules for that I should be voted winner. The debating between these was totally unnecessary as only a link to the story was needed. My opponent then brought up the policies of Debate.org which have nothing to do with fan fiction. Who says that we cannot have some fun? A strongly urge you to vote for me on the account that my opponent did not follow the rules anyway.
Terrible Fan Fiction Challenge!

First, my opponent asked for the most terrible, or worst fan fictions. I only needed to provide 1 because there can only be one worst fan fiction. Second, this is a debate website, not a spam thread for fanfictions. If he is posting a debate, it is only fair for me to assume that he wants to debate a topic instead of creating a mini-forum. Finally, Jaden Yuki is less than 18 years old in Yu-Gi-Oh! GX. In my opponent's fanfiction, he is raped by Jack Atlas. The terms of service state, "P.Will not upload Content that exploits anyone under the age of 18 in a sexual or violent manner, or that solicits personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18." My opponent has violated the terms of service, and, according to the eligibility clause of the terms of service (see below), he needs to lose the debate. Extend all of my arguments as to why his fanfictions are not as horrible as mine. There is no reason to vote for him. Eligibility By using the Debate.org Services, you represent and warrant that (a) all registration information you submit is truthful and accurate; (b) you will maintain the accuracy of such information; (c) if you are under the age of 18 you have permission from your legal guardian to utilize Debate.org Services. (d) Your use of the Debate.org Services does not violate any applicable law or regulation. (e) Your profile may be deleted and your Membership may be terminated without warning, if we believe you are not "eligible" to utilize the site's services.
Terrible Fan Fiction Challenge!

May ask why I cannot post new fan fictions. The instructions said to provide a fan fiction for each round. I also did not day that the previous one I posted was the worst ever. What happens is that a fan fiction is posted for each round and in that round a voter must decide between the two fan fictions which is the worst. There is no need to have posted anything else but a link to the story. There should be no arguments because this is not really a debate, just a competition between two fan fictions for each round to see which is worse. Depending on who has the worse would obviously influence the voter to vote for that person. My fourth: http://www.t-s-s-a.com...
Terrible Fan Fiction Challenge!

Chapter 1 is an introduction that somebody else wrote. Even if I did not explicitly state it, we were talking about the fan fiction as a whole, so it was implied that we needed to review my entire book. It is not fair for him to post new fanfictions just because his previous one was refuted. He called his previous one the "worst one ever", so by posting a new one, he is 1. conceding that he was wrong and should therefore lose the round and 2. being abusive by altering the rules of the debate. He did not respond to ANY of my arguments. Extend them all and vote for me.