BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
eating meat is wrong of course

Right from the start, I would like to point out that PRO's position is unclear. The title of the debate states that it is wrong to eat meat, but PRO only mentions beef in his opening arguments. Meat is a vague term generally meaning any animal tissue that is eaten [1]. Therefore, beef, pork, poultry, fish, shellfish, and even insects might be considered meat. Some clarification here would be helpful. PRO's Arguments As I understand it, PRO's arguments are that 1) cows cannot be happy if we are eating them, and that 2) the human diet doesn't need to contain meat. PRO might also be arguing that we shouldn't eat meat because of the treatment of the animals pre-slaughter, but this isn't clear; some clarification would be helpful here as well. I would first like to point out that PRO has not tied his arguments to his overall position. If we come to an agreement that cows cannot be happy because we are slaughtering them, we then must discuss why this should be a part of the decision-making process regarding the foods we eat. Likewise, if the human diet doesn't require meat, the claim that we shouldn't eat meat doesn't necessarily follow; PRO must draw the line connectiong these two points. Happy CowsPRO has claimed that the only way cows can be happy is for them to be allowed to live beyond the point when they would normally be slaughtered. Until PRO provides evidence for this claim, it remains an opinion. I will address it if PRO chooses to support it with evidence. I would also like to point out that even if we come to agree on this point; PRO has not shown why the happiness of cows shoule play a role in the decisions humans make regarding their diets. Human Diet PRO's second argument is that the human diet doesn't require meat. I will concede the point that it is generally possible for a healthy adult to eat a balanced diet as a vegetarian or a vegan, but it is very difficult [2]. In fact, in some areas, its impractical, if not nearly impossible [3]. Also, when feeding children vegetarian diets, special care must be taken [4] as there have been numerous documented instances of children dying or suffering other negative consequences as a result of just such dietary restrictions [5]. As a final point on diet, even if it is 100% true that humans can consume a healthy, balanced diet without eating meat, PRO has not connected that point with his claim that it is wrong to eat meat. Conclusion (so far) So far, PRO has not sufficiently made his case. He hasn't connected his arguments to his claim, and his claims only address one of the numerous kinds of meat that humans eat. PRO has not yet met his burden of proof. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://articles.mercola.com... [3] . http://www.nytimes.com... [4] . http://kidshealth.org... # [5] . http://whatstheharm.net...
eating meat is wrong of course

ok first off i thnk it s wrong /totally wrong to eating, meat. It comes and cames from the animals, i wnet to farms and it is not good, the cows are not too good to be killed for the food ( meat). thE only way theycan be hapy is for them to be living not killed for meat or food, if u eat them ur not good. it is a disapointment to see anyone , doig this for met. we caxn of course still live w/out the food (meat).
All recreational drugs should be legalized.

'Here some evidence. Several websites list that three quarters of the treatment is paid for by taxpayers.' Yes and I don't support this , I support private healthcare but either way Con failed to prove that these rehab facilities cost more then the war on drugs and frankly I highly doubt so. Like I mentioned in Round 2 , drug prohibition is incredibly expensive . The US alone could save billions 'If it legalized drugs, the United States could save $85 billion to $90 billion per year. Roughly half that is spent on the current drugs policy and half that is lost in taxes that the state could have levied on legal drugs.'-(http://www.spiegel.de...) . The war on drugs has cost the US at least a trillion -(http://www.rense.com...) -(http://www.foxnews.com...) If you are gone say that the rehab facilities cost the taxpayer more then a trillion then you have to back this up with evidence . 'Now I would like to see your evidence :)' Evidence for what? . 'You said that if drugs were legal, they would be cheaper and addicts wouldn't have to steal. Do they even have to steal in the first place?' No they don't but they will statistically much more then the average citizen and how is criminalizing drugs dealing with this? . 'For example, according to the National Drug-Free Workplace Alliance, 80 percent of people who abuse drugs steal from their places of employment in order to sustain their addictions. Far more people might steal from those they live with. The theft could be minor and include spare change or leftover medications. The theft could also be major, as the person might raid bank accounts, grab credit cards or take jewelry. The thief might also steal identifying information, allowing the person to open up bank accounts or take out loans under your identity.' - (http://luxury.rehabs.com...) . ' Let's say someone ends up running out of money and can't get any more drugs, they will eventually move on with life without drugs and they won't be addicts any more. ' Do you think they are statistically likely to give up their habit? You have to back up your argument with evidence then. I have to remind Con again that she has to create some arguments too , I have clearly stated in Round 1 that the BoP is shared and while I have posted my arguments in Round 2 she simply addressed what I said instead of making a case for herself . She has not fulfilled the BoP .
All recreational drugs should be legalized.

Here some evidence. Several websites list that three quarters of the treatment is paid for by taxpayers. A study funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) found that 77.4 percent of treatment in 2003 was paid for by Medicaid, Medicare, and other federal, state and local sources, up from 50.4 percent in 1986. Meanwhile, the private sector's share of the treatment cost burden slipped from 49.6 percent in 1986 to 22.6 percent in 2003. http://www.drugfree.org... Now I would like to see your evidence :) You said that if drugs were legal, they would be cheaper and addicts wouldn't have to steal. Do they even have to steal in the first place? The answer is no. Let's say someone ends up running out of money and can't get any more drugs, they will eventually move on with life without drugs and they won't be addicts anymore. So that's one less person we have to worry about with using drugs.
All recreational drugs should be legalized.

I would like to remind Con that the BoP is shared and she has to come up with arguments for her case too. 'As to the war on drugs costing to economy billions and thousands - Rehab facilities are also costing economies billions and thousands.' If you are making the claim that rehab facilities cost more then the war on drugs then you actually have to back up your argument with statistics and evidence. 'Drugs aren't safe, and they certainly aren't safe in large amounts. Taking large amounts of drugs can lead to a ton of violence and crimes.' Drugs would be cheaper as I explained in round 1 and therefore there would be less crime as drug addicts wouldn't have to steal to get their next fix . The black market would fall therefore reducing a lot of drug-related violance . Milton Friedman has estimated that the black market causes 10,000 additional homicides a year. -(http://www.youtube.com...) (Around 5 minute mark) .
All recreational drugs should be legalized.

First of all, I think cigarettes are fine as long as people smoke them far away from restaurants, stores, etc... As to the war on drugs costing to economy billions and thousands - Rehab facilities are also costing economies billions and thousands. Drug use is quite frequently associated with violence. Yes, there are violent people who don't used drugs and there are people who use drugs who aren't violent. Drugs aren't safe, and they certainly aren't safe in large amounts. Taking large amounts of drugs can lead to a ton of violence and crimes. Drug related deaths also cost the government a lot of money.
Morality is subjective

My opponent drops all of my contentions and never addressed them. He says that we have a moral compass that is 100% objective but doesn't give any reason why. He uses the Bible to ground morality but this is flawed. Clearly people who haven't read or disagree with the Bible are still moral and have a sense of what they ought and ought not to do. There are more reasons why the Bible is a poor candidate for grounding any supposed objective morality (genocide, infanticide, slavery, etc).
Morality is subjective

Moral inconsistency: Morality varies wildly from person to person and from society to society. Societies make laws that are based on ethics and ethics are derived from morality. By comparing what different societies accept as lawful concerning ethical or moral issues, this will indicate whether humans have an objective or subjective sense of morality. We can do this because societies are just a large collection of individuals with either subjective of objective moral sense. Here in the U.S. lawmakers believe that child marriage is unethical or immoral but in Yemen it's a perfectly acceptable practice. Back in ancient Israel it was morally permissible to stone your son or daughter for disobedience. In the Aztec civilizations it was morally acceptable to sacrifice people to the Aztec gods. In Ancient Rome is was acceptable for society to watch people to kill each other for their own amusement in the gladiator arenas. If morality is objective, or doesn't depend on the opinion of anyone to decide whether something is indefinitely right or wrong, why is there so much obvious subjectivity here? Naturalistic fallacy: A naturalistic fallacy is one where a value is assumed to inherently desirable when it actually isn't. There is a difference between saying (1) this medicine will bring you back to health and (2) you ought take this medicine. The first statement is factual and the second statement is an opinion. There can't be any objective moral values because what we ought to do can't be inherently determined since it depends on what the individual wants. In the medicine example, maybe the person wishes to die and doesn't want to accept the medicine. Sociopaths: There are numerous people that evidently don't show any commonly shared morality no matter what society they live in. If there's always this deviation from even the subjective norm, how could it still be true that the sociopath ought not to do what he thinks he ought to do? Incoherency of moral truths: "It's true that you ought not to lie". How can this "truth" be positively tested for that we ought not to do this? There isn't any. Objective moral truth statements are incoherent. So in sum, morality is evidently subjective, objective morality suffers from incoherency and the naturalistic fallacy as well as people who have no concept of what they ought or ought not to do such as sociopaths. Over to you con.
Morality is subjective

This will be a Devil's advocate debate for me. Here are some key definitions that you must accept before agreeing to the debate. If any of these are problematic leave a comment and I'll change them if need be. Subjective: true depending on opinion. Objective: always true regardless of opinion. Morality: a system of good and bad or right and wrong behavior. Morally good: behavior that we ought to do. Morally bad: behavior that we ought not to do. My opponent will argue that morality is objective. Shared burden of proof. Good luck to my opponent.
IsTV Viewing Harmful Or Not

i think you are also using spectacles because in my comment it was 2.5m and you changed it to 25m. offcourse i am not watching tv within a distance of 25m. i think the percentage of the people using spectacles is only 8% or even less than that. from this 8%, 50% may be using because of high concentration in studies,10% may be using because of headache, the remaining 40% are those who does not follow any rules regarding watching tvs.offcourse there may be some exceptions. you may have realised that 75% of the students who are very good in studies uses spectacles. if you are asking me i would like to say that i am watching TVs following my rules. now let me ask you the same question. please post your answer in your next round
IsTV Viewing Harmful Or Not

you said that it does not harm your eyes if we sit within a distance of 25 meter and also gave some more suggestions.let me ask you asmall doubt ,will you yourself follow these instructions posted by you.if you feel so from the bottom of your heart then do let me do.let me add one more thing 90% of the people using spectacles are using it just becauseof their habit of watching t.v . what do you have to say about this
IsTV Viewing Harmful Or Not

TV viewing is not harmful if we use it properly. my opponent is saying that it harms our eyes. but i am saying that it wont harm us if we keep at least 2.5 m distance from it. and that too,for a limited period of time. everything will be harmful if we overuse or misuse it. but everything will be okey,if we use it properly. my opponent's next argument was "it makes us mentally unfit". can you please explain this sentence.actually how can a TV makes us mentally unfit. because as i told you "everything will be harmful if we misuse it" and this is the answer for all your points
The United States Should Issue a Nationwide Ban on Smoking (Either in Public or in Private)

I will first say that I hope this goes as well as our debate on nuclear energy. 1: The smoking of ciggarettes gives us a large amount of money in taxes.The United States is in a time where we need any money that we can get. We are trillions in debt and any money we get can help. The federal government collects nearly $7 billion annually in cigarette excise taxes.Taxes are not the only government revenue from cigarettes. Settlements in the late 1990s to end state lawsuits against tobacco companies mean that the cigarette industry is paying states nearly $250 billion over 25 years. The incredibly large amount of money headed to the government is needed. 2.The American people do not want it.According to a recent nationwide survey of registered voters by Zogby International, 45% of Americans said yes to a ban n smoking.(1) We should not make the americanpeople do something that the majority of people do n want. We have to take a look at the last time something like this was banned. The prohabition of alcohol was a miserable failure. The likleyhood of this happining is very high. 3. It would not solve the problem Big tobacco wouldn't disappear; it would just change hands and go underground, discarding its high priced lobbyists in favor of people more skilled in violence and intimidation.There would be hundreds of thousands of new prison cells for tobacco producers, pushers and users and this would just cost us more money. You just need to look at cocane and heroin for this as the drug market for them is not legal and they are still used often.A total ban on smoking would put us down a large amount of money, we would be going against what the people want, and would not even solve the problem.(1)http://www.huffingtonpost.com...(2)http://www.nytimes.com...
The United States Should Issue a Nationwide Ban on Smoking (Either in Public or in Private)

In this debate, I and baseballkid will be debating on the legitimacy of a complete ban on smoking in the United States (all 50 states & the District of Columbia). As Pro, I will be affirming the resolution whereas baseballkid will take the opposite position. This debate will consist of 5 rounds. Rules: First Round: Acceptance & Clarification(s). Second Round: Main Argument (No Rebuttal). Third & Fourth Round: Rebuttal(s). Fifth Round: Summary ONLY. No new argument. Definitions: Legitimacy: The quality or fact of being legitimate (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) May both of us enjoy this debate and let"s begin.
The United States Should Issue a Nationwide Ban on Smoking (Either in Public or in Private)

I will just go through how each point went starting with my own case and then with my opponents. COST: My opponent continues to throw out the "medical costs" of cigarettes but the fact remains that the people who smoke still pay the hospital. THEY STILL PAY. I have said this before and it was ignored. The taxes and deals with tobacco industries outweigh the "medical costs" that the smokers pay. I would also like to point out the prison costs that many people would fill considering 1/5 of Americans are breaking this law and not all will change. Wronging the American people: It is bluntly wrong to make everybody who smokes just stop. If people did not want it they would stop doing it. I go back to the very beginning and my opponent never brings up how this would be any different than the prohibition of alcohol. This would end up the same and it did not work out well in the first place. It would not solve the problem: "Drug industry goes underground primarily because drugs such as cocaine is illegal to possess in most of countries around the world" Drugs go underground because people want to get their drug on and if they get caught they go to jail. People will still smoke even when the ban is over and there will be violence and we will also have to spend money to attack the new drug cartels that come up because of the recently banned cigarettes. We would also be spending money on jail cells and prison related costs. My opponents arguments: He entirely drops his talk about cocaine and instead pukes up fact after fact of how smoking is bad and bad be banned. He brings the argument to a moral one in my freedom arguments. People want to smoke and it is morally wrong to stop all these people from doing what they are doing. The difference between rapes and murders is that someone else is harmed. We have laws to stop secondhand smoke so they are only doing things to themselves. The benefits of letting people smoke is far better due to economic benefit due to less prison costs, taxes, and deals between the tobacco company as well as the wronging of 21% of the American people and the fact that is would cause problems due to cartels, prison space, and the loss of jobs because of the lowering of demand.
The United States should re-instate the ban on Elephant Trophies

I appreciate con"s acceptance of this debate.1. Elephants are great [1] They play, cry, laugh, and they never forget. They are compassionate and altruistic, and even have greeting ceremonies when they see a friend who has been away for a long time. They are the only animal other than humans to snorkel underwater (they use their trunks). They can purr like cats, sense temperature through their trunks, hear sound through their feet. They stand in quiet reverence when they visit the bones of their dead. Human qualities are quite frequently elephant qualities.2. The poaching industry is a destabilizing military & economic forceOne of the ways Boko Haram funds itself and trains its kidnapped recruits is by poaching elephants. It's not just organized terrorism either - poaching provides a niche for rogue warriors to wander well-equipped and well-funded across Africa and bully entire villages at their whim. 3. Elephant poaching funds all poaching The same poachers who kill elephants also kill Rhinos, Gorillas, Lions, and Zebras [3]. The more endangered a species is, the more the poacher expects to make from killing it. The more important a creature is to its own herd or pride, the more the poacher targets that specific one. Poaching contrasts from hunger-driven hunting and other forms of business by being more harmful ecologically, ethically, politically, and economically. ConclusionLifting the ban on Elephant trophies increases the number of consumers available for Elephant poachers. It widens the economic niche, and signals to governments, rogue bullies, and terrorist groups that the laws of its allies and the ethics of life mean nothing to the United States. The ban should therefore be reinstated as soon as possible.1. http://www.happyelephantcontest.com... 2. https://www.nationalgeographic.com... 3. https://www.awf.org...
Ubuntu (for) vs. Windows 8 (against)

I highly doubt Linux will take off in the mass private sector anytime soon, at this point in time, any open source operating system just doesn't hold up. at least not yet.As for Adobe or Microsoft making software for Linux, you run into a possible ethical problem for users who turn to Ubuntu or any Linux distro that mater, if it make sense to run closed source software on a platform centered around openness? For the time being, Windows has more capability and compatibility than Linux in every category from programming to media creation to productivity to content consumption. As of right now, you can't pay blu-rays on Linux without work arounds, as of right now triple A titles aren't available on Linux, as of right now industry standard software isn't available on Linux. It should also be said that DRM web plugins like Microsoft Silver light make it difficult, if not impossible to use services like Netflix on Ubuntu. All operating systems have their strengths, OS X is amazing for content creation if you use Final Cut or do music production, Windows can get stuff done and then play games, and Linux can do a lot of bare bones raw computing tasks and has versatility in all sides of the field of computing, I just don't feel that Ubuntu is ready for prime time yet as the shift form Windows 7 to Windows 8 was jarring enough for most, that a shift from Windows to an entirely different platform would be alien.A 200 Mb difference in OS size is a weak argument as these are the respective sizes of compressed disk image. Reiterating my point, the pre-packaged software in Ubuntu can easily be downloaded on Windows as well, making it nothing special. The reason that these programs are free falls into the use of the GNU license and the fact that they are open source. Microsoft puts a lot into Office, considering it's more powerful than any other office suit I've used, I can understand paying a ~$150 for three or so programs that are industry standard in almost every industry when in comes to documents, spreadsheets, and presentations. As for programming, it's more of a personal preference. I use OS X as my main OS along with XCode, Eclipse, Dreamweaver, and Android Studio for development. A friend of mine uses Windows 8.1 with Delphi Studio, and I know people who use Eclipse on Linux to do their programming, it all falls into personal preference. In the end, whatever someone uses, as long as it gets the job done, it's the best OS for the job. I personally feel however, that at this point in time, one can do more with Windows 8 than Ubuntu in terms of productivity, creativity, and entertainment.
Ubuntu (for) vs. Windows 8 (against)

It is time for the rebuttals!!! To start things off, I am going to say that Ubuntu is just starting to get popular, I didn't learn about Linux until a few months ago. Thus saying that it is not appropriate to say that Windows 8 has better software compatibility than Ubuntu. Once Ubuntu/Linux becomes more popular as an open source OS, there is a chance that the Microsoft Office products may become compatible with Linux (depending on if Microsoft is willing to sell there software to another OS such as Ubuntu). Ubuntu does come pre-packaged with Firefox, Thunderbird, LibreOffice etc. which means that Ubuntu software providers do not want to charge people for programs that should be free such as Word, PowerPoint, Excel etc. Plus, Linux carries their OS at about 800MB, as Windows 8 is just over 1GB. Most would rather use the 200MB for some other program. I do use Windows 7 on my HP Laptop because of the programs (After Effects, Photoshop etc.) compatibility. But my desktop at home is operating Ubuntu. I personally haven't used wine yet, because I just recently installed Ubuntu a few days ago. So, I do have to agree with you about Linux using a lot of command lines, though most computer programmers would prefer using Ubuntu because of the flexibility of the OS.