BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence

con is arguing unheard of points about governmet involvement with guns, here is is talking about if the government has the power to decide who can have a gun then they have a power to take it away from those with rights. the problem is con is trying to make gun rights absolute, and there are very few aboslute rights. all amendments to teh constitution even have exceptions. so con contineus to take far fetched scenarios more seriously than the current reality of gun violence that is out of control. con doesn't respond to the idea that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun. con just says if you want a gun you can get it. he ignores that i pointed out that not everyone will. if you dont have a gun when you might commit a crime due to a background check, a crime would have been prevented. studies show that more guns in an area means more overall death. that means it's more than just popele will kill with whatever they get,,, they are more likely to kill with a gun. sure it's the person who is the problem more than the gun, but when it's so direct, it's fair to say the gun is the problem too.
On balance, Eating meat is not ethical

Alright, let's look at some statistics. The average person is eating ~215 pounds of meat a year which is divided in(average): 27 chickens a year, 1/4th of a pig and 1/13th of a cow, on average, per year[1]. I honestly do not see this as over-consumption of the average human worldwide. Of course most of an animal is used. Except for the edible products which have a variety of uses including gelatin and subproducts such as marshmallows, gummy bears, chewing gum, margarine(yes it contains meat byproducts) the hide is used in shoes, footballs amongst others. The oils are used for lipsticks, tanning oils, face and hand creams and more. Bones are used to make buttons, piano keys, glue, fertilizer and more. Other than all that, cattle also produces medicinal byproducts including insulin, even though not as much now as in the past.[2] I am stating that even if we were to not buy meat, that will not drive the need of animal cattle down. Companies and individual people will still want and look for cattle byproducts and the production would keep going but the meat would go to waste. [1] http://www.nationalchickencouncil.org... [2] http://www.cattle-empire.net...
On balance, Eating meat is not ethical

1) This resolution's wording was carefully chosen. I don't have to prove that eating meat is always unethical, only that it is not ethical on balance. This means is that if I am able to maintain that more-often-than-not, eating meat is not ethical, I win. Nothing is inherently ethical; some things are just amoral, meaning the burden in this debate is not one-sided; Con does not win just by refuting Pro ground, they must warrant that eating meat is ethical on-balance; if anything is amoral or morally grey, it flows Pro. Con claims, without proof, that all parts of an animal are used when they are slaughtered for consumption. Raw materials in factory farming can be thrown away just for being ugly[1], farmers don't go out of their way to use parts they don't need. Do not let Con arbitrarily determine when eating meat is and isn't ethical; any contribution to the demand for meat redirects resources which could be used elsewhere. The 1/10 stat con offers isn't based in evidence[2], most people eat 2 times their daily recommended allowance for meat; and to produce that meat requires 100 times as much water. 2) Three answers; first, this debate is not about how the world could be, but how the world is. At the point my opponent states that we could lessen the environmental or starvation impacts by buying less meat, they admit that we consume meat at problematic levels in the status quo. Second, we cannot divorce a product from it's source. When the majority of meat consumed comes from factory farming, we aren't immune from the farm's immoral practices; 99.9% of chicken consumed comes from factory farms, Con has to answer up for that fact. Finally, do not miss the forest for the trees; yes existing meat would go to waste, but after we stop farming meat the raw ingredients can be used more efficiently. [1] https://www.ciwf.org.uk... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.ca... q
On balance, Eating meat is not ethical

1) While it is true that excessive consumption is never ethical, you cannot speak for every person. Eating meat does not have to be unethical, most people have a somewhat balanced diet that does not focus on excessive consumption of any product. You can't say "eating meat is not ethical because 1 out of 10 people overeats" And yes, if we use our resources more efficiently, theoretically no one would have to go hungry, although people would still go hungry even if someone on this planet had an infinite supply of food. People waste all sorts of food, but animals on the other hand do not produce as much waste, as we use the skin, meat and bones. No part of the animal goes to waste and in the end, if nobody bought the meat, it would be thrown and gone to waste, but the animals would continue getting bred and killed, while leather(and other animal sub-product) prices would go up. 2) As I said before, even if all the people would stop buying meat to eat, the factories would still keep farming animals for other reasons, continue to damage the environment but all the meat would go to waste. And you know that the factories wouldn't send the water to the 780 million people who do not have access to clean water. As you said in the beginning, this discussion is about the ethicality of eating meat in specific, not of farming animals in factories. It would be unethical for us to stop consuming meat, as it would mean a big increase in the amount of food that would otherwise go to waste.
On balance, Eating meat is not ethical

In this debate I will maintain that, on balance, eating meat is not ethical. My burden shall not be to prove that vegan, vegetarian, or any other diet is ethical; this debate is only about the ethics of eating meat. 1) Excessive consumption is never ethical Consuming things beyond one's needs is always unethical. It does not matter if one is entitled to the things that they are consuming, or if they received the things they are consuming fairly. For one to consume beyond one's needs wastes resources which could otherwise be allocated to those in need. This is particularly true when we realize that 1/3 of all food produced worldwide goes to waste every year[1]. If we were to use our resources more efficiently, no one would ever have to go hungry. There is no way to reconcile unnecessary consumption with the level of suffering so many people experience. 2) All factory farmed meat is excessive consumption Most meat produced is factory farmed [2]. When people in the rich world eat more meat than they need to, they cause damage to the environment[3]. Rich nations create a demand for meat which contribute to greenhouse gas production and use of natural resources which could otherwise go towards growing more sustainable food sources. The most important form of resource waste comes in the form of water used in agriculture[4]. When farming meat, animals must be fed, watered, cleaned, and cared for. Meanwhile 780 million people lack access to clean drinking water[5]. Consuming meat drives this demand for water which further limits access to those in need. [1] http://www.fao.org... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] https://www.theguardian.com... [3] http://wwf.panda.org... [4] https://www.cdc.gov...
Resolved: Recreational marijuana use should be prohibited

I will begin my first argument by discussing the negative effects of cannabis on its users. With this being said, I wish the best of luck to my opponent and am glad to finally be doing this debate. The Dangers of Marijuana on Its Users Marijuana has a variety harmful effects on its users. In this part of my argument, I will discuss the short- and long-term effects of using this drug. Some of the short-term effects of using marijuana include, but are not limited to, the "high" feeling, altered senses (e. g. seeing brighter colors), an altered sense of time, mood-swings, impaired body movement, difficulty with thinking and solving problems, and impaired memory.1 Also, let it be known that hallucinations and anxiety/panic attacks can occur with short-term usage of marijuana if the dosage is high enough.2 Some of the long-term effects of using marijuana include, but are not limited to, suppression of the immune system, reduction of male sex hormones, destruction of lung fibers and permanent brain damage, reduced sexual capacity, and severe mood-swings.3 Clearly marijuana is too dangerous of a drug to be legalized for recreational purposes. Its effects can be long-lasting and severe. The Dangers of Marijuana on Others According to researchers at Columbia University, marijuana has contributed to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010.4 In addition to this, according to Russia Today, marijuana-related deaths, school suspensions, traffic incidents, and poisonings have spiked in Colorado (a state which legalized the drug back in 2012).5 Once again, we clearly should not legalized cannabis. It has been shown that legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes causes a spike in crime, traffic incidents, school suspensions, and more. Conclusion I conclude in this first argument that marijuana is too dangerous for recreational purposes for two main reasons: it is harmful to its users and to others. Sources 1. "Marijuana. " DrugFacts:. N. p. , n. d. Web. 09 Feb. 2016. 2. "Short and Long Term Effects. " Of Marijuana. N. p. , n. d. Web. 10 Feb. 2016. 3. "Short- & Long-Term Effects of Marijuana - Negative Side Effects of Weed - Drug-Free World. " Short- & Long-Term Effects of Marijuana - Negative Side Effects of Weed - Drug-Free World. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 4. Schmitz, Matt, Cars. com Chris Woodyard, and Usa Today. "Marijuana Playing Larger Role in Fatal Crashes. " USA Today. Gannett, 09 June 2014. Web. 11 Feb. 2016. 5. "Marijuana-related Deaths, Suspensions & Problems Spike in Colorado – Report. " RT International. N. p. , n. d. Web. 11 Feb. 2016.
Resolved: Recreational marijuana use should be prohibited

Rules:1) No trolling!2) Have proper debate etiquette!3) Do not use fake or satire sources! (A list of fake and satire websites can be found here: www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/)4) Use MLA-style citations. (Citation generator: http://www.easybib.com......)Layout:FIRST ROUND IS ACCEPTANCESECOND ROUND IS FIRST ARGUMENTSTHIRD ROUND IS REBUTTALSLAST ROUND IS WHY YOU DID BETTER THAN YOUR OPPONENTDefinition(s):Marijuana - "the dried leaves and flowers of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa)."PRO ARGUES THAT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA USE SHOULD NOT BE LEGALCON ARGUES THAT RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA USE SHOULD BE LEGALLet the debate begin and good luck to my opponent! :-)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------MESSAGE TO VOTERS: TO BE SURE NO VOTING COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED BY MODERATORS, I HAVE DISABLED VOTING COMMENTS FOR THIS DEBATE. POST ALL VOTING COMMENTS IN THE COMMENT SECTION, IF YOU WISH TO DO SO.
Cleveland and Akron are basically the same thing

I noticed you failed to address my argument pertaining to the two different symphony orchestras that clearly illuminate that Akron and Cleveland are different places ("things"). This omission is understandable because it really proves my point beyond all shadow of a doubt. Upon Googling "things to do in Akron", there is no mention of Cleveland. Similarly, the same can be said when you Google "things to do in Cleveland". The logical conclusion is that those two cities are not "basically the same thing". Thank you for the debate.
Cleveland and Akron are basically the same thing

You have yet to argue my last amazing point about size. Both in population and area, neither are a real city. Further, if you can drive from one place to another in under 40 minutes, they're basically in the same city and that's just a straight up fact. LeBron claims to be from Cleveland. People from "Akron" support Cleveland sports teams. Cleveland and Akron are the same thing. Thank you for your time and I'm confident the voters will get this right if they read all the arguments.
Cleveland and Akron are basically the same thing

Lebron claims to be from Akron. Please note he doesn't claim to be from Cleveland. With that knowledge, we can safely put to bed the ridiculous notion that Akron and Cleveland are "basically" the same thing. The internet tells me that driving time between Akron and Cleveland is 39 miles. If these places were "basically the same thing", there would be no driving distance between them....ergo, they are not the same thing. Have you ever heard of a place have 2 different mayors at once? Me either. The current Mayor of Akron is Donald L. Plusquellic. His counterpart in Cleveland is Mayor Frank G. Jackson. Two Mayors for two distinctly different places. Clearly not the "same thing". Basically.
Cleveland and Akron are basically the same thing

Listen pally, The New York metropolitan area, to use an example, is 468 square miles. Cleveland is just 82 square miles while Akron is just 62 square miles. They cannot be separate cities, as you see, because combined they're still just a quarter the size of my randomly selected example. The NYC city limits include cities in New Jersey and Connecticut, an area spanning three states. Surely Cleveland and Akron, a space less than 45 minutes apart, should be considered the same as well. Lastly, LeBron James is from Akron, but everyone always talks about him being from Cleveland and the fact that he returned home to go to the Cavs. Thus it is commonly accepted that the two are virtually interchangeable.
Cleveland and Akron are basically the same thing

Basically Cleveland and Akron are not the same thing. When breaching the city limits, a traveler will notice one city has a sign that says "Cleveland" and the other city has a sign that says "Akron". Clearly they are different places and far from the "same thing". Both cities have their own Chamber of Commerce. Both cites have their own symphony orchestra. The Cleveland Orchestra is an American orchestra based in Cleveland, Ohio. It is one of the five American orchestras informally referred to as the "Big Five". Founded in 1918. Akron has a completely different symphony that was founded in 1949. An important and basic difference between these two unique cities is clearly their different symphonys. If these two cites were the same, there would not be two musical entities with different names.
Cleveland and Akron are basically the same thing

Google Maps says it's a 44 minute drive (source: https://www.google.com...). Akron only has 200,000 people in it, while Cleveland has about 400,000. Merge the two and it's still not even in the top 30 among biggest American cities. Therefore I have definitively argued Cleveland and Akron are both basically the same place and would be better served by merging and creating one city. Can't make it up.
Weather the Legal Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal

1.By making the sale of organs legal the question will always come down to whether or not someone else deserves an organ rather than another person. Imagine this scenario where a boy that comes from a poor family is next on line for an organ but suddenly the sale of organs becomes legal and a rich 65 year old man has the money to pay for the next available organ and he gets it instead of the nine year old which is still a life saved but the question remains was his life saved just because he could afford to spend the money and not the poor nine year old. 2. By making the sale of human organs it will lead to an unjust society. Conclusion therefore the sale of human organs should remain illegal.
Weather the Legal Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal

I understand that there is no guarantee that both the donor and the receiver will be okay , that is why if the sales of organs becomes legalized it should be heavily regulated to the point of guaranteeing a safe procedure to the donor as part of the deal. Although many of the procedures do end up helping the receiver and leave nothing more than a scar to the donor who proceeds to heal quickly. Our society is very economically driven, and yes it would be perfect for a person to just suddenly decide they would like to donate an organ to help someone, but in reality that isn't the case. People wait years for transplants which may turn out to be too late. While if there were to be money involved, it could speed the process and save more lives.
Weather the Legal Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal

1.It is true that it might help poor people for a short time with the money they get from selling their organs but does that not open the door for the possibility of a person who is selling their organs to potentially getting sick during or after the surgery and not having enough funds to get the right medical care. 2. To add on to this the list of transplants is so high that by making the sale of organs legal it will definitely give a huge advantage to the wealthy who will easily just pay for organs while the poor who cannot afford it will probably never get the organs they need since no one will want to donate they will only want to sell. Conclusion the sale of human organs should remain illegal
Weather the Legal Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal

On the contrary, by banning sales of human organs it increases the sale value of organs on the black market allowing the trade of organs and human trafficking crimes to grow even more. Besides the fear of a crime outbreak can't cease the chance of numerous people to be alive and carry through with their lives. The sales of human organs does not only allows the very high possibility of saving lives, since the list of number of people waiting for a transplant is so high, but it also creates an economic advantage for a person who may be in need of money allowing the possibility of also having a better life. Once again, the sales of human organs should be legal.
Weather the Legal Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal

1. The sale of human organs if it becomes legal will lead to human trafficking and profiteering. Alot people will do what ever it takes to get their hands or organs to sell and make a profit of it. 2. The sale of human organs is not right and will give a even more unfair chance to people with little to no money in getting the organs they need as the more wealthy people will indeed be able to afford to buy the organs before the poorer people and it will ensure the rich being the only ones to be able to get organs. Meanwhile if every person regardless of class and money is put on a same donor list which accepts organs by donation then anyone will have the chance to get the organs needed. C. The sale of Human organs should be illegal.
Weather the Legal Sale of Human Organs Should Be Legal

1)Sadly, the amount of Americans waiting for a transplant outnumbers the amount of donors by four to one but people's willingness to donate would increase by allowing cash payments for exchange of their organs. 2) The donation of blood, semen, and eggs, and even medical trial volunteers, are very often economically compensated and the same principles need to be applied to organ sales. C) The United States should legalize the sale of human organs
The United States should convert to the Metric system

The United States should NOT convert to the metric system because in order to convert, we would have to change every single road sign, every single container, every single map, every single GPS system, and much much more. Millions upon millions of dollars spent just to make America the same as everyone else. But the American Standard System is just part of what makes America unique. Our money needs to go to more important things, like schools and creating more jobs. Now, you may argue that the changing of the road signs will create jobs, but that will only last a couple years, and just when people are finally settled into their jobs, they will be unemployed and homeless again because there are only so many signs you can change. Unemployment will be right back where it was before. It is not worth spending millions of dollars when you can just convert inches to centimeters using a calculator.
The United States should convert to the Metric system

Before I begin, I think you read my estimate for the metric system spending wrong, I said .1%, not 1%. The cost to fund an entire 1% of the education budget would be way more than what I projected. I think my .1% was a decent estimate. As I put the 368 million into perspective and found that it really wasn't that much money compared to our entire budget, the only real point you have made that will delay us from converting to the metric system is because it is a part of the American culture. The customary system may be very dear to a couple of Americans, and while I think our goal should be to unite the World, nobody can change how much they may love our current system. But again, that is the only draw back, and it doesn't apply to too many Americans. And 5,280 feet to a mile is the farthest thing from "simple math." As this is my last post, I would like to review my argument. Here are the top 5 things we'll gain from using Metric. 1. We will have a much easier system to calculate in our heads. 2. Everything we manufacture will be compatible for foreign nations. 3. We will no longer be clueless if we travel to another country and read anything involving temperature, speed, distance, and weight. We will also finally be able to speak the language of science and medicine. 4. We'll no longer dump extra money and waste class time teaching kids two systems. 5. Human error from measurement conversions will be a thing of the past. Lastly, here are 2 things people think we will loose by going metric, but we actually won't. 1. We won't loose a ton of money. We'll actually end up gaining more money without having to fund U.S measurement lessons in schools. We also will save money when trading overseas. 2. Most people already know the metric system and won't have to learn it. Every student gets taught both systems in school, but they only get to use the harder of the two when they get out of it. It's not to hard to learn anyway.
The United States should convert to the Metric system

I disagree with MANY of the things you wrote in your last argument. First of all, teaching the metric system would be MUCH less than one percent of the total government spending on education. You completely overestimated. Although I do admit that the US Standard system is harder than the metric system, I believe that it is a huge part of the American culture. Would you really want to throw that away? That's a horrible deal. We pay 368 million dollars, we lose a great aspect of our culture, we save some money, but much less than 368 million dollars, all to save a little bit of time and an insubstantial amount of money. What's next? Are you going to propose that we use Euros instead of dollars because that's what all of Europe uses? Individuality us part of what makes us American! And you are willing to take that all away to save much less than 1% of our overall spending on education, and save a couple business' some money? Is it really worth it to disrupt America's wonderful culture to make it easier on the children? You said it yourself, the metric system is much easier than the US Standard system so it shouldn't be that hard to learn, should it? And the Mars rover was a mistake that anyone could make. Just because one person messed up their conversion doesn't mean that we all will. I know I wont. And besides, it might be a good thing. They're not going to make that mistake again are they? And you have to remember that .01% of 3.5 trillion is still a ton of money, much more than the average person will make in their entire lifetime. Just because you're to lazy to do some simple math doesn't mean that the rest of America is.