BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nutrition & Well-Being

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases and are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.[[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028]] Furthermore those who require "extreme performance" can find a comparable grade of protein quality from soya based products including soya "milk" shakes. All essential vitamins and nutrients can be acquired from vegan sources. Both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association have endorsed vegetarian diets. Studies have shown that vegetarians have stronger immune systems than meat-eaters and that meat-eaters are almost twice as likely to die of heart disease, 60 percent more likely to die of cancer, and 30 percent more likely to die of other diseases. Consumption of meat and dairy products has been conclusively linked with diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, clogged arteries, obesity, asthma, and impotence. According to Dr T. Colin Campbell, nutritional researcher at Cornell University and director of the largest epidemiological study in history, "The vast majority of all cancers, cardiovascular diseases, and other forms of degenerative illness can be prevented simply by adopting a plant-based diet." (i.e. a pure vegetarian diet with no animal by-products). Plus just think about this for a moment: some of the world's largest and strongest animals are pure vegetarians e.g. The Elephant, Hippo, Giraffe, Rhino, Cattle, Horses, Gorilla etc. And they seem to be thriving very well living off vegetation and have done so for many hundreds of years. . . . So does this not at least show you that to grow up big and strong we as humans too can gain all of the nutrients and dietary requirements solely from plant sources alone? Of course it does - common sense confirms this statement plus there have been countless studies with much evidence to show that a pure vegetarian diet is one of the healthiest choices you can make for you, the animals and the planet. And about the augument that 'vegetarians don't get enough protein' Plant foods offer abundant protein. Vegetables are around 23% protein on average, beans 28%, grains 13%, and even fruit has 5.5%. For comparison, human breast milk is only 6% (designed for the time in our lives when our protein needs are as high as they'll ever be). Professional recommendations for adults range from 2.5% to 10%, and plant foods supply that easily.
Animals are below humans, therefore humans can eat them

Animals are inferior to humans. Animals, unlike humans, do not have morals- an animal who kills another animal cannot be punished. Animals can not create, unlike humans. The only "creating" that animals do is by instinct only, as a means of getting food. Animals don't have rational thought. For all these reasons, humans have the right to eat animals. And in any case, most of the animals regularly eaten don't have any kind of ability to be creative or make tools.
Ethical arguments in favor of eating necesarily lead down a slippery slope.

In answer to the first question: yes, the cow would be permitted to eat me, just like lions are permitted to eat me, however I would be able to fight back. As long as the world was built for it- it's okay. In answer to the second question: it is not normal for a member of a species to eat another member. If a cow would eat another cow it would get mad cow disease. The rules of nature do not allow us to eat cows only because they are "dumber" than us, but also because they are of a different species. As long as BOTH those conditions remain- you're okay.
Nutrition & Well-Being

Why eat meat? Nutrition & Well-Being Meat is not only one of the very oldest foods for humans, but is also one the most biologically valuable. This fact is mainly due to its high protein content. In addition, however, a part of the human requirement for vitamins and iron is also covered by eating meat. It is therefore not surprising that meat has an especially high importance in the menu planning of those people who have to deliver extreme performances. The composition In general, raw, unprocessed meat from the muscle is made up of the following: Protein 15 - 22 % Fat 3 - 15 % Minerals, carbohydrates 1 - 5 % Water 65 - 75 % Protein Meat protein supplies the body with the necessary amino acids in almost the ratio that it needs. It is therefore of particularly high value. Fat The fat that is present in meat not only represents a high-quality source of energy, but is also an important quality factor. The juiciness and the aroma of meat and meat products is largely determined by the fat content. In addition, the fat from the meat from the muscle contains fatty acids that are indispensable for humans, and therefore has a very high nutritional physiological value. Trace elements Meat exhibits a wide spectrum of various trace elements in a balanced composition. A special importance is hereby placed on iron, which is present in meat in a form that can be utilised particularly well by humans. A significant proportion of the iron requirement of humans is covered by meat. Meat also plays an important role in the supply of zinc. Vitamins The water-soluble vitamins of the B-complex from meat and certain entrails make an important contribution to a human being’s vitamin supply. Humans are particularly dependent on foodstuffs from animal sources for the supply of Vitamin B12. With 100 g of muscle meat, the need for individual B-vitamins can be covered to between 20 % and 100 %. The liver takes a special position with regard to vitamin content, which, in addition to the B-vitamins, also has a high Vitamin A content. Source: Proviande
Water use

This does not seem to be an argument against eating meat, rather an argument against either farming meat or animals being alive in general. On farming meat, this is not efficient, however thsi does not mean we shouldn;t eat meat it means we should look at makinf more efficient farms or smaller, more localized farms. We shouldn't however simply stop farming and either slaughter the animals currently there or just let them free, because lets face it, animals will always drink water. If the Opp is trying to say that using water on animals is inherently bad then there is a much bigger problem than simply eating meat. All the statisics being used highligh the issue that animals drink water. Yes this is true, tehy need to to survive, tehre is no conclusion on wetehr we should stop eating meat, this point os more of a fun fact. If indeedwater supply is limited we need to look at ways to make things more efficient, this does not mean we should abandon eating a large part of the human diet.
Humans need meat in their diet

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases and are appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.[[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12826028]] Eating meat does not in itself make you healthy. Those who eat five ounces of meat daily increase their risk from cancer or heart disease by 30 percent compared to those who eat two-thirds of an ounce daily. Those who eat none at all are least likely to die from heart disease and cancer.[[Jim Montavalli, Meat the slavery of our time, Foreign Policy, 3rd June 2009, http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/03/meat_the_slavery_of_our_time%5D%5D Additional while some vegetarians do consume supplements, the cost of these are minimal compared to the cost of meat.
Ethical arguments in favor of eating necesarily lead down a slippery slope.

Answer these questions: If a cow had more than enough grass to survive and even live happily with, and this cow decided to eat you, a human being, would such a cow be permitted to do so? If a human being had the same mental composition of a cow (no morals, very very dumb, etc), should other humans be allowed to eat him (in a non-survival situation)? What if this human tasted as good as cows? Does that change anything? In response to your answers: 1) Lions are not exactly permitted to eat humans in our society. If this occurs anywhere except for in isolated nature, the animal would most likely be round and destroyed (think Jaws for an example with a shark). 2) There are many examples of animals eating their own species. "Cannibalism has commonly been observed in the wild for a variety of taxa, including octopus, bats, toads, fish, monitor lizards, red-backed salamanders and several stream salamanders, crocodiles, spiders, crustaceans, birds (crows, barred owls), mammals, and a vast number of insects, such as dragonflies, diving beetles, back swimmers, water striders, flour beetles, caddisflies and many more". [(http://www.whereincity.com/india-kids/animals/)]
All the opposition's arguments are environmental

Is the environment a bad reason? eating less meat (not necessarily none) is a very easy way to help the environment. Many would find it easier to do than getting rid of their cars. And gas lamps are not a sensible substitute as they would be much more environmentally damaging than electricity (which can be produced cleanly). The only reason the livestock would be easy prey is because we bastardized these animals to the fact that they don't even know what to eat. Cows shouldn't eat corn, they should graze on grass. Furthermore, if there wasn't years of eating meat than these animals wouldn't be on the planet to begin with. Your argument is like saying we should continue to use heroin because we bought a pound and it would poison our water supply to flush it. AND the raising of livestock accounts for 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain (according to http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html).
The farming of animals causes suffering. Causing suffering is wrong. The farming of animals is wrong

The issue is whether people should eat meat or not. From a nutritional and free choice standpoint, the answer is people should be able to choose whether or not to eat meat, and not be subject to any law which would ban the eating of meat. (See the arguments for nutrition in this debate). Those who say "no" from an environmental/moral standpoint are extending this argument which, in my opinion, belongs in another debate. However, to answer the rebuttal to my argument (to the right), his/her argument is more about the practices associated with (in particular) factory farms. I have studied and viewed documentaries concerning factory farm practices, and agree with many of the things my opponent has to say. However, we tread on dangerous ground when we offer the simplistic solution of not eating meat. There are many who would legislate what we put into our own bodies. Freedom in this country means the freedom to eat what we choose to eat (other than cannibalism). We go down a slippery slope when we begin to legislate what people can eat. We are already on a slippery slope, in my opinion, as more laws are passed and government gains more control over the lives of citizens. The answer to the problem outlined above, and by my opponent, is to go through the proper legislative channels to improve regulations concerning how factory farms operate. In the meantime, you can choose not to eat meat, or to buy meat from those corporations and farmers whose practices you approve of. Personally, I choose to eat wild game because it comes from a natural environment in which the animals have eaten natural foods. These range of choices allow us to preserve the freedom to choose what we put in our bodies, including the freedom to do business with those who engage in humane farming practices, as well as the freedom to present legislation to change the inhumane practices of factory farms.
We shouldn't eat as muh meat.

Humans evolved to be able to eat meat, but that has no impact on the question of the ethics of meat eating because the evolution of our species was entirely lead by chance and the selection pressure of our environment. Their is no ethics in nature. However we have also evolved to be able to be able to make ethical judgements and change our behaviour in accordance to our values. If one one wishes to stop animal cruelty the best way to change ones behaviour in accordance with that value is to stop eating meat.
We don't learn everything in School and we do learn may not be very useful; terminology evolves as quickly as language

Having a positive outlook can be a fairly natural personality trait. Some people are very convincing; naturally. You may not need experience in entrepreneurship and to be around successful people helps out in weighing out and bettering your chances for success if and only if they do not see you as a-threat/competition. Most successful entrepreneurs have humble beginnings largely because no one sees the janitor/doorman/Chai-waala/CocaCola-vendor as a threat. So; business ideas, tricks,agendas and secrets are discussed openly in front of these people. They're almost invisible thus non-threatening.
We don't learn everything in School and we do learn may not be very useful; terminology evolves as quickly as language

Entrepreneurship involves taking a risk with starting a project/business/company. The rules are simple: write a business plan; ask the right people the right questions(since this is hard to gauge; ask everyone questions), if you're starting a service check on the demand for this service and so on. All these simple tasks however can be taxing and unrewarding. Most of the time; the information you gather is not useful; people are self-involved(just as you are; you have to be to start your own thing) and losing spirit/hope/drive is easy. I was an econ major and I'd never even heard the term P.P.P in college. [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity]] [[http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_ppp_percap-economy-gdp-ppp-per-capita]] Would being an econ major really help start a business. It can only tell me when/if to shut down. It won't tell me if a product/service will sell successfully or not. No amount of research will give me a fixed answer either. Starting businesses requires clairvoyance; lucky hunches and so forth. Without experience (where experience includes working/interacting close/closely to/with an existing successful entrepreneur) It is rather easy to lose heart and not be able to keep up with or filter through; what is relevant. Just as selective terminology is used in academia; so is the case in the workplace. People with strong ingrained concepts can still have sufficient trouble catching on to the semantics of different offices and appear to be incompetent. an entrepreneur cannot afford to appear to be incompetent. The skill of covering up your weaknesses; shirking off opposition with grace, winning people over; comes with time and experience. This is never natural, not easy to learn(tell me about it) and unless you convince yourself of having genuine faith in people and the universe ; the effect wears off every now and then. Seinfeld's "Serenity Now" doesn't work; a positive attitude cannot be mastered without effort; quick relief/fixes are harmful in the long run.
Exactly, the key success for entrepreneurship is not only the experience of entrepreneur, it include knowledge, Leadership, Communication, Ability to learn, Opportunities, and especially creativity and innovation. All successful entrepreneurs, start out

Running a business on your own requires skill and knowledge. The question is what skill and knowledge? Do you really need an MBA? Of cause, you really need when you study at university o college, they will provide you the degree programs usually include the standard financial and managerial accounting, statistic, economics, strategy, management, finance and other that is very important for entrepreneur. Some key that all entrepreneurs should consider is leadership. Being an owner-manager will give entrepreneur plenty of opportunities to put their new skills to the test and taking this first step will give them the opportunity to test out their responses to this new situation. In turn, they’ll then be able to evaluate what has worked and what hasn’t, and help their plan what to do or avoid doing next time. For Communication, it is very important taken into consideration as a major influence for knowledge entrepreneurship. About Ability to learn, I want you consider the story about the ignorant businessman, the intelligent businessman makes the same mistakes over and over again the same and unfortunate, outcomes, but they can take the advantage from this mistake it means that they have to push their ability to learn from their failure. Moreover, entrepreneurs who identify more opportunities may select to pursue better quality opportunities with greater wealth creating potential because they have more opportunities to choose from. For creativity, being an entrepreneur takes reactivity. Whether it is looking for a new idea to develop or finding a new solution to an old problem, creativity is what sets the light bulb off. "Innovation is the specific tool of entrepreneur, the means by which they exploit change as an opportunity for a different business or different services." And it causes growth and development of business, and any change and complexities can not difference its goal or objective, especially, they’re able to overcome obstacles that would stop most people, turn problems and risks into opportunity, deliver and see ideas thought to final application. According to these keys which can encourage the people to become a successful entrepreneur, we cannot say that only experience that is the key success for entrepreneur. For this reason, this topic is absolutely wrong.
The only long-term solution is no private vehicles.

Using the subway/tube/public-buses/trams/school buses/cycles should be made compulsory so that traffic congestion does not permeate further and traffic is efficiently organized. In the long haul, people need to learn to share resources; it will be a cheaper/cleaner(Eco-friendly:individual carbon footprints would be greatly divided(in lieu of forty people using ten-forty cars, forty-plus people will be using a bus))/better means of commuting. Security should be tightened on public transportation(given the number of public bombing/shooting/bus-burnings in the news) to ensure safe travel.
Better information

Better information for all transport users, be they pedestrians, in public or private transportation, to allow them to make better judgments. Traffic flows can be smoothed, and so congestion removed, with better information. An example is on public transport systems that flow in sequence, such as the tube. The trains may usually frequent but, due to some delay, have started to bunch together. The next train to arrive will get slower and slower as more people, who have waited longer than usual, pile on. Whereas the train after it is catching up, with fewer passengers to pick up. Knowing that the next train is chock-full, and the one after it is close behind but almost empty, would allow passengers to wait for the latter, thus smoothing out the congestion.
Cell phones

[[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/cell-phone-users-slow-traffic/]] cell phone users make bad drivers, cell phones only give off signals when they're on. A study by the university of Utah ,reveals that cell phone users face brain overload distracted by all the talking and do not drive as well as they would if they were focused solely on driving.[[http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/News/TrafficJamBlameCellPhoneUsers.aspx]]
Cell phones

A lot of people complain that people yakking on phones are the biggest players in causing traffic-jams/accidents/road-problems, but Cell phone technology can and is used greatly to determine which routes are the most congested, so as to signal drivers to change routes on the basis of the information. the more congested a road the more cell phones on that road, signalin the artificially intelligent device in your car, reminding you to avert theg possibility of finding yourself in a jam [[http://washingtontechnology.com/Articles/2009/07/23/Cell-phones-to-aid-traffic-monitoring.aspx]]
Building highways/motorways/flyovers or painting bus-lanes

Bus drivers often drive outside of bus lanes, the same can be said about motorcyclists who twist/turn/squirm/worm through the smallest nooks and crannies between cars/automobiles, rickshaws and buses. The problem is in a blatant/callous disregard for rules and other drivers. Everyone thinks selfishly, trying to get to where-ever as quickly as possible(even by breaking the rules).
Framework of the debate

Extraordinary general elections or by-elections are mostly triggered by sudden shifts in the government structure (e.g. the death of the prime minister). In those cases parliamentary democracies commonly recognise that there might have been a change in the perception of the government . Also the general result of the vote is likely to have changed if the electors would have known the change of prime minister beforehand. We propose that there is a number of reasons why this is also the case when the prime minister changes and general elections should automatically be triggered. In the interest of the debate we define prime minister as the leader of the government or the Cabinet. Obviously there are other titles for that person(for example “chancellor”), but that does not make a difference in principle. We set this debate to all Western liberal democracies. We believe that the change of prime minister is most likely to occur either internally (within a party) or externally (other parties are also involved).
The concept overestimates the role of the Prime Minister

Voting in parliamentary democracies involves the public electing their preferred party. As such the party in power is the one who the public have chosen to be in office of the specified time period. A change in PM simply means there is a change of figureheads but the government stays the same. Thus a general election would be unnecessary as this would undermine the structure of a parliamentary democracy. Individual PMs are not granted any real extra power over other cabinet ministers, but rather have the role of upholding an image for their party amongst the public and the media, appoint cabinet members and make decisions with the other cabinet members. The media is utilised by the party to sell their policies, and those running for PM create a façade which is used to sway the voter’s opinion and convince them that their party has the best policies. The Prime Minister-ship of Tony Blair and his relationship with Gordon Brown is one such example of this, after the death of Labor Minister, John Smith, Blair and Brown made a pact to allow Tony Blair to run for leadership. During the 2010 election, years after Blair’s term had finished, Blair publicly endorsed Brown’s leadership and aided in his campaign. When we look at the issue of instability, we can see that a change in Prime Minister does not in fact disturb the running of the government in charge however, instability will arise by triggering an automatic general election which may bring upon sudden and uncertain changes creating further economic instability in countries which may or may not be able to afford to risk instability. The automatic triggering of a general election is an unnecessary upheaval and use of resources as it provides no real benefit to the best interest of the nation’s people.