BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Excess cat populations should be eaten as dinner as opposed to euthanasia.

Excess cat populations should be eaten as dinner as opposed to euthanasia. Euthanize "verb 1. (transitive) to kill (a person or animal) painlessly, esp to relieve suffering from an incurable illness" dictionary.reference.com Pro will argue that excess cat populations should become dinner instead of euthanasia. Con will argue that excess cat populations should be euthanized as opposed to being eaten. With all the hunger problems and environmental problems in the world it makes no sense to euthanize excess cat populations. The problem of destructive fishing techniques could be mitigated by substituting some fish meat for feline meat. Including bottom trawling, cyanide fishing, dynamite fishing, and ghost fishing. "These trawls - whose use is now widespread - are extremely damaging. In an experiment off Alaska, 55% of cold-water coral damaged by one pass of a trawl had not recovered a year later. Scars up to 4km long have been found in the reefs of the north-east Atlantic Ocean. And in heavily fished areas around coral seamounts off southern Australia, 90% of the surfaces where coral used to grow are now bare rock."wwf.panda.org The Amazon rainforest could also be saved via consuming cat in lieu of cow. "The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector." greenpeace.org When one in seven Americans struggle to get enough to eat it makes no sense for the valuable resource of cat meat to be wasted. Why should we put the needs of a feline above those of the environment and of hungry American children? "About 20 percent of American kids experience food insecurity" Elaine Waxman "Some 795"million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth." wfp.org "" Number of cats and dogs entering U.S. shelters each year: 6 " 8 million" oxfordpets.com "Around 2.7 million dogs and cats are euthanized every year in the United States, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). This figure represents 1.4 million cats" ask.com "Each year, approximately 2.7 million animals are euthanized (1.2 million dogs and 1.4 million cats)." ASPCA I for one argue no, the needs of humans outweigh those of felines. Euthanasia of felines is a waste of resources in a hungry world and therefore immoral. Fluffy belongs on the dinner plate. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://wwf.panda.org... http://www.greenpeace.org... http://www.feedingamerica.org... http://www.wfp.org... http://www.oxfordpets.com... http://www.ask.com... https://www.aspca.org...
Apples are better than Oranges

Health benefits of oranges Nutrients in oranges are plentiful and diverse. The fruit is low in calories, contains no saturated fats or cholesterol, but is rich in dietary fiber, pectin, which is very effective in persons with excess body weight. Pectin, by its action as a bulk laxative, helps to protect the mucous membrane of the colon by decreasing its exposure time to toxic substances as well as by binding to cancer-causing chemicals in the colon. Pectin has also been shown to reduce blood cholesterol levels by decreasing its re-absorption in the colon by binding to bile acids in the colon. Oranges, like other citrus fruits, is an excellent source of vitamin C (provides 53.2 mg per 100 g, about 90% of DRI); Vitamin C is a powerful natural antioxidant. Consumption of foods rich in vitamin C helps the body develop resistance against infectious agents and scavenge harmful, pro-inflammatory free radicals from the blood. Orange fruit contains a variety of phytochemicals. Hesperetin, naringin, and naringenin are flavonoids found in citrus fruits. Naringenin is found to have a bio-active effect on human health as antioxidant, free radical scavenger, anti-inflammatory, and immune system modulator. This substance has also been shown to reduce oxidant injury to DNA in vitro studies. Total antioxidant strength (ORAC) of oranges (navel variety) is 1819 µmol TE/100 g. Oranges also contain very good levels of vitamin A, and other flavonoid antioxidants such as alpha andbeta-carotenes, beta-cryptoxanthin, zea-xanthin and lutein. These compounds are known to have antioxidant properties. Vitamin A is also required for maintaining healthy mucus membranes and skin and is essential for vision. Consumption of natural fruits rich in flavonoids helps the body to protect from lung and oral cavity cancers. It is also a very good source of B-complex vitamins such as thiamin, pyridoxine, and folates. These vitamins are essential in the sense that body requires them from external sources to replenish. Orange fruit also contains a very good amount of minerals like potassium and calcium. Potassium is an important component of cell and body fluids that helps control heart rate and blood pressure through countering sodium actions. Citrus fruits, as such, have long been valued for their wholesome nutritious and antioxidant properties. It is scientifically established that citrus fruits, especially oranges, by virtue of their richness in vitamins and minerals, have many proven health benefits. Moreover, it is now beginning to be appreciated that the other biologically active, non-nutrient compounds in the citrus fruits such as phyto-chemical antioxidants, soluble and insoluble dietary fiber helps in cutting risk for cancers, chronic diseases like arthritis, obesity, and coronary heart diseases.Ty for debating!Info found on: http://www.whfoods.com...http://caloriecount.about.com... http://oranges.com...
disbelief=belief to the contrary

Thanks. Unfortunately, my opponent has not really responded to the vast majority of my case and instead has chosen to make some bare assertions, which is essentially this: "no, atheism Is disbelief, belief to the contrary" Disbelief just means refusal to accept something is true, but as I have demonstrated that does not mean you believe it is false Pro makes assertions on definitions which is not really within his grounds to set. He uses no source and doesn't give us any good reason to accept his definitions or logic. Vote con. Good luck.
disbelief=belief to the contrary

so you are an agnostic then, agnostics dont believe.. no, atheism Is disbelief, belief to the contrary.. gnostic and agnostic is non belief, know and i dont know positions atheism is anti theism, negative is anti positive why are you trying to change it am i showing 3 fingers behind my back? we dont take hypothesis to court and put them on trial.. lets not complicate things into oblivion shall we
disbelief=belief to the contrary

Good luck. So it seems that this is pretty obviously grounded in the notion that atheists don't merely lack belief but also believe that he does not exist as a result of not believing he exists. Not to sound condescending, but this is a common misconception that I used to share as well and I'm happy to clear it up as one who is currently atheistic. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. Nothing more, nothing less. If I choose not to believe something, this is not the same to say that I believe it didn't happen. There is a middle ground of simply not taking a side on the matter. Anti-theism is the term for those who believe that god DOES NOT exist. This is perhaps demonstrated best with the popular courtroom analogy, which I'll quote from another website that explains it very well: http://www.freethoughtdebater.org... "The accused"s innocence is assumed to be true, unless someone can actually prove otherwise. In other words, the accused"s innocence is the default position. As a result, it is absolutely not required for the accused to prove his innocence; he has only to show that, based on the prosecution"s case, there is no good reason to believe in his guilt; that the arguments and evidence presented by the prosecution are either unreliable, or do not make his guilt any more likely than some alternative explanation. Simply put, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Importantly, when a jury returns a finding of "not guilty" they are not saying that they believe the suspect is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have a truckload of doubt about his innocence. Their finding means only that reasonable doubt exists as to the suspect"s guilt. If there is such reasonable doubt and the burden is on the prosecution, then the jury is ethically and rationally required to acquit" You may believe that the defendant is innocent, but that's a separate matter. All the atheist says is that the evidence is not good. Thank you!
disbelief=belief to the contrary

is it true that i am showing 3 fingers behind my back? theist=yes, no 1 2 4 or 5 atheist=no=4 fingers, 2 fingers etc, not 3 agnostic=i dont know=dont see it the theist is atheist to 1 2 4 and 5 finger positions the atheist believing i am showing 2, is a theist
Blacks need to start taking responsibility for their actions.

Hello again kind sir. Let's Start A large majority of blacks use their skin color too much to their advantage, and to get out of bad situations or benefit themselves. When anyone says suggest something that might even possibly offend them a lot of the time the response is oh is that just because I'm black? It's been used so often it's become a joke. I recently read in the Time magazine an article about the Trayvon Martin case. The topic was how black parents needed to start teaching their children that they were going to get stopped by police, and how they should act. I thought this was RIDICULOUS. Really? That much about this one case? Do you know how many times black people RANDOMLY shoot white people? I once read, and I can't remember where so I'm sorry but I can't site it, that a black man in a car shot a mentally retarded white man for swinging his arm in the air at him? Where was social media to make a big deal out of that? Where were they to corrupt it it and make it racist? Racism in as large quantities as it existed during the Civil War era simply does not exist in the U.S. anymore. Blacks need to stop using it as an excuse.
Blacks need to start taking responsibility for their actions.

I just want to make on thing clear before we start: I am not racist. Rules: 5 rounds 1st round- acceptance and opening arguments (only one paragraph) 2nd-4th rounds- main debate 5th round- conclusion I believe that blacks need to stop blaming other people for their struggles. Very few people are actually racist anymore (compared to the Civil war era), and whites cannot be blamed for the statistics of black schoolchildren, gang violence, and assumed police racism and violence. The majority of the black population needs to start standing up for themselves.
Blacks need to start taking responsibility for their actions.

Black people have always been at an economical disadvantage to white people. This has nothing to do with work ethic or intelligence. When our country was created African Americans were slaves owned by whites. Even after they gained their freedom they were still looked upon as inferior and had many limits in society. They couldn't live in white neighborhoods, they had to sit in the back of the bus, they couldn't even use the same water fountain. This still impacts African Americans today. Once blacks gained "equal rights" they still lived in the poor neighborhoods and had the lower paying jobs because they didn't really have any other options. People quickly assume that black people just go out and rob convenience stores for fun when really they need the money to put food on their families plates. Parts of the United States are still extremely racist. States such as, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina etc. are almost completely segregated. There are small towns in these states run by the KKK where black people are afraid to even stop for gas. When I last visited North Carolina I was shocked to see just how different it was. My own cousins who were some of the most kind people I have met are racist beyond belief. They believe that black people are less intelligent than white people, keep in mind this is our country.
weapons should be banned in our world

For a weapons banning to be truly effective, it would have to stop more destruction than it caused. Just stopping one act of terror does not make the ban completely effective. It seems that the ban would actually cause more destruction than it stopped because of the fact that the entire world would be unable to defend itself from those who ignored the ban. For the sake of this argument, let's assume that the ban succeeded in removing all weapons of mass destruction from the world. Would you ban sticks and stones as well? Or, as mentioned before, fists? Because this is what terrorists (naturally violent people) would use to cause destruction. This may not seem like "mass destruction" but, now that you've banned their nukes, the very meaning of mass destruction has changed. It can no longer be defined by what does not exist, i. e. nukes and other kinds of deadly bombs. The definition is now based on the largest amount of destruction caused by sticks, stones and fists. Great debate!
weapons should be banned in our world

A) I am not saying about the definition of terrorists and about all the terrorists.I am saying about the ones who became so with the influence of weapons.Today the children around us play shooting games in their computers where these children would go on shooting people around them who they sees.So in reality when they get a weapon like a gun they would try to destroy or shoot all the people around them.These people take it as a fantasy.So here we can see that these weapons can sometimes make a person a terrorist. B)Fists are painful and destructive but is it greater than weapons? C)Simply banning does not make it disappear.But if banning does not take place it means that it support weapons.Banning something can prevent even someone from doing it.If one person does not use it a large destruction that can be caused by him also becomes in effective.For eg. the banning of poaching has made an effective reduce in it.So weapons should be banned. I am thanking con for a good debate.
weapons should be banned in our world

A) I absolutely agree with you when it comes to the fact that terrorists use very deadly weapons to do get their way. But the question is, is it the weapon that makes the Terrorist? By definition a terrorist is "a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims." And terrorism is defined as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Therefore a terrorist is someone who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political (governmental) aims. There is no mention of weapons anywhere in this definition. It's violence that makes a terrorist, not weapons. B) Fists can be quite painful and destructive. C) Simply banning something does not make it disappear. One example of this is the attempt in America to ban alcohol back in the early 1900's. Alcohol did the exact opposite of disappearing during this time. By banning weapons throughout the world, you would merely leave the world defenseless against those who would not follow this ban.
weapons should be banned in our world

Yes the people are the reason for self destruction in the world.But let me ask you..how can these people cause destruction without using weapons?Can these people make destruction by fist fighting with each other?Never.So this is where the weapons come in.If a man start using weapons then that person would surely have a craze to use the deadliest weapons of the world.So the aftereffect is a wide damage to our world.These people would see the killing as a fantasy and this is how an ordinary person changes into a terrorist.So these weapons not only destroy the world but also the humanity of each persons. http://en.wikipedia.org... So from the following link we can find out that the terrorists use the deadly weapons.What can these people do without weapons?Can the bring mass destruction?????? And from all this we can finally conclude that weapons which are a source of great destruction should be moved from our world.............
weapons should be banned in our world

The technology of our world is growing day by day.As the technology grows the weapons that is created becomes more and more disastrous and destructive.Today in our world almost all the destruction are caused by these weapons which are being deadly day by day.We may have heard about the harms caused by world wars which have lead to the death of many people.The main and the only reason for this is the use of these weapons in these world wars such as nuclear bombs.Some of the side effects of these are........... http://library.thinkquest.org... These are some of the many disadvantages of weapons.All these shows the necessity of removing these weapons from our world.By doing it may help to make our world a better one.So my opinion is that we should create a world with no use of weapons that is it should be removed from our world......
Christmas is the most important Christian holiday.

"ohh i forgot i was pro."-point for spelling and grammar- "A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults, conducted Dec. 15-16, found that nearly nine out of ten Americans celebrate Christmas. Only 7 percent consider the holiday one of the least important while 71 percent consider it one of the most important." You said ONE of the least important. And this was supposed to be for the most important CHRISTIAN holiday! If Jesus hadn't died on the cross, he would have just been a regular mortal being who magically had the power to perform miracles. I didn't expect you to report back so fast, so Happy New Year's again!
Christmas is the most important Christian holiday.

ohh i forgot i was pro. ARGHH Christmas is one of the nation's most important holidays, the majority of Americans say, even more than those who listed the Fourth of July. A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults, conducted Dec. 15-16, found that nearly nine out of ten Americans celebrate Christmas. Only 7 percent consider the holiday one of the least important while 71 percent consider it one of the most important. On a more religious note, 65 percent of Americans would like to see more emphasis on the birth of Christ during the season and 59 percent plan to attend a Christian Church service on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. Another Rasmussen Reports survey found the 69 percent of Americans prefer stores to use the phrase "Merry Christmas" in their seasonal advertising rather than the generic "Happy Holidays." An earlier Zogby International poll found the 95 percent of Americans said they were not offended by a "Merry Christmas" greeting in stores. Major retailer Wal-Mart welcomed back the Christmas phrase to their stores this season. And the war on Christmas is dying out. After battling an "outrageous" attack on Christmas last year, Christians are happy to see a more peaceful Christmas season this year.
Christmas is the most important Christian holiday.

Okay, firstly, you're supposed to be debating for Christmas, not New Years! And by the way, Easter is the most important CHRISTIAN holiday because if Jesus Christ hadn't died to save us from our sins, then he would've just been some random mortal being who magically was able to perform miracles. -Christian definitions- Christmas-Jesus Christ's birth Easter- Jesus Christ's death (33 years later) Merry Christmas everyone!
Religion is not Important

You must have missed something when you were reading from God's word. God does not categorize us into religion. People do that. God loves all of us equally, regardless of religion, status, or income. Religion is not important because you will have God's love either way. Some people label me a Christian. I do not care to take that name because you are putting me into a category. I am merely one of Thousands who follow God. I take up my cross and follow Jesus. Religion does not love you. Just tells you how to love God. Well doesn't the Bible do that? Why would you need to be labeled with a religion if you are reading from the Bible that not only tells you how to love God, serve God, or follow God, but how to be like Him as well? Wouldn't it be amazing to see all the religions come together and worship their God? Just to forget about all of the rules that their religion has set, and focus on the rules of God instead? Isn't that so much more important than following your religion? God labels us as His children. The world labels us with religions. Either way you are going to Heaven if you believe, right? So saying religion is important, when you will get to Heaven if you believe in God and love God with OR without religion, is ironic. Religion is of the world. God is not of the world though. He is creator of the world. And followers of Christ are suppose to be like Him. Not of the world, just in it. Not living in the world, but living in God.
Religion is not Important

Pro says “it is often said that people turn to religion when they are in trouble. Why would you turn to religion and not God?” I am not sure of my opponents point here as the definition that he provided for religion includes the belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power… Ergo when someone says they are “turning to their religion” it could easily be a reference for turning to what they believe is “God.” Pro also says “If we were to get rid of religion, all we would have left are our God, or gods to worship.” Again I am not sure of the point my opponent is making. The definitions provided as to what religion is would include a “God, or Gods to worship.” As such it is a nonsensical argument my opponent is making. To “get rid of religion” based on the definitions my opponent provided is to “get rid” of God. Pro then says “By the BBC terms, if you don't have religion, you don't have morals. Which we all know is not true. Atheists have morals. They just don't believe in a god.” I find it odd that my opponent would quote the BBC definition and then take issue with the definition that he quoted. Odder still my opponent says “Religion doesn't define you, it doesn't help you, it doesn't take care of you. (Depending on what/who you believe in) God helps you, God takes care of you, God loves you. Religion is the world's way of describing you, not God's.” Again, the conclusion that my opponent makes that “God helps you, God takes care of you, God loves you,” fits the description of what could be called a religion. Conclusion: My opponent has not disputed any of the definitions of important. Therefore, “Having observed all 7 definitions of the word important, it is clear that religion fits all of them. As such, religion is important. The resolution is negated.”