BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can't be a meat eating environmentalist.

First off, all definitions came from dictionary.com The definition of environmentalist is: 1. an expert on environmental problems. 2. any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects. First off, advocates-One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender. your other argument is one that works and has the title of "environmentalist" lets look at these definitions Hypocrite-a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. A PERSON WHOSE ACTIONS BELILE THEIR OWN STATED BELEIFS. So, one who argues that they are, as you stated "environmentally conscious" and argues to protect the environment, is a hypocrite if they eat meat because it is horrible on the environment, something you neglected to even debate. Now. on to the job. lets look at these definitions, poseur-a person who habitually pretends to be something he is not fraud-a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur. If one goes to college and gets a degree to become an environmentalist, as the previos definition stated,, they are being a hypocrite, a poseur, and a fraud. so they are not actually environmentalists. Also, if your an expert on environmental problems, you know the harmful affects of meat, and if you eat meat, then your a hypocrite and a poseur. "Or, you could recognize that one can be environmentally conscious without being a vegetarian" This is not true because that is not what an environmentalist is, YOUR DEFINITION sated they are a supporter or one that argues for their cause. i have clearly disproved this, they are a poseur and a hypocrite. "Which is better: Someone not eating meat, and being environmentally friendly, OR, someone deciding they DO indeed like meet, so they don't make an effort in the least to help the environment because you say that they're cause is meaningless. Personaly, I would like every person to be environmentally sound." From your definition, these are not environmentalists so it is irrelevant. "Many PAID, and PROFESSIONAL environmentalist are in fact, not vegetarians." Just to restate, these people are frauds, hypocrites and poseurs, totally disproving your attempt to try to win this debate. for the voters, Candice did not argue any of my main points and turned this into a semantics debate, and because of this she should not win, even if you do agree with her.
You can't be a meat eating environmentalist.

Or, you could recognize that one can be environmentaly conscious without being a vegetarian. Which is better: Someone not eating meat, and being environmentaly friendly, OR, someone deciding they DO indeed like meet, so they don't make an effort in the least to help the environment because you say that they're cause is meaningless. Personaly, I would like every person to be environmentaly sound. So, I'm sorry that you didn't specify in the topic of this debate EXACTLY what you recently found you meant, after I totally called you out on the weakness of your argument.
You can't be a meat eating environmentalist.

Sorry, let me specify. Taken from dictionary.com under noun for the word environmentalist, "someone who works to protect the environment from destruction or pollution". Under this description it is impossible to eat meat, without regulation, and still be trying to protect the environment from destruction. The practice of factory farming, in many cases, can be more damaging than any other industry. Also, I thank you for arguing the semantics of the word, "environmentalist", when I feel it was quite obvious what I meant. If you can debate the fact that eating meat regularly is not bad for the environment and that one who eats meat regularly can still, with logic, be against the destruction of nature, please do so. (Also I don't mean as a paid position, I mean philosphically and morally.) For any doubters: http://www.livestocklongshadow.com... http://www.nrdc.org... http://www.fao.org...
You can't be a meat eating environmentalist.

The exact definition of environmentalist is: 1. an expert on environmental problems. 2. any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects. So, basically you can be an environmentalist and not even recycle because being an envirnmentalist is a profession, not only a state of mind. I've never heard of a stipulation that you cannot get a college degree, and get a job as an envirnomentalist because you eat meat. That is because it does not exist. One can also be an "environmentalist" because they recycle, and recognize global warming and man's hand in it. Just because they don't practice they're earth conscious lives as you do, doesn't mean that they don't think about they're effect on the world. So, the topic of this debate which is: You cant' be a meat eating environmentalist, is utterly false. Many PAID, and PROFESSIONAL environmentalist are in fact, not vegetarians.
You can't be a meat eating environmentalist.

If one believes that they are an environmentalist, then you really cant eat meat. According to the U.N., the livestock sector causes more pollution than the entire transportation sector and all other industrial sources combined. Animals raised for food, produce 5 times more excrement than the entire human population, 86,000 pounds per second. Their excrement produce sixty five percent of world wide nitrous oxide emissions. Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon monoxide. Methane is also released from the excrement, and it is 20 times more potent than carbon monoxide. The run-off from factory farms also pollutes our fresh water resources more than all other industrial sources combined. The E.P.A reports that these large amounts of excrement are pushed into rivers and lakes and have contaminated 35,000 miles of rivers and contaminated ground water sources in seventeen states.
You can't be a meat eating environmentalist.

Clearly, pro has blinder's on. I would much rather have everyone recycle, regardless of they're choice to eat meat. So now that I have efficiently proven that you don't HAVE to be a vegetarian to help the environment, I'll tackle your theory or eating animals hurting our world. If you want to be 100% environmentally friendly you can eat meat. Going to farms that give they're animals special attention, open pastures to graze in, and no chemicals is the key. These animals live healthy lives, and animals fecal mater can be gathered, and used as natural fertilizer for vegetarian's vegetables. Also, think of ALL the land that would be monopolized if every single person in the world went vegetarian. Not to mention the equipment used to harvest, process, and deliver the veggies. To live a totally comfortable life, no body is going to be perfect, environmentally. Our job should be to do everything possible to make sure we're thinking about our impact, and take steps to make our world cleaner. Beef is the animal that releases the most carbon into the atmosphere. Human's release more. What about the carbon chickens, or chicken eggs release? The chicken close to none, and the egg absolutely none. Should we all stop eating poultry and fish because beef releases carbon? Carbon is a natural gas, and in moderation is normal. Man made production of carbon is what we need to watch out for and moderate. Would vegetarian's want to kill all of these carbon releasing animals for the ozone? I don't think so. If human's weren't polluting, then we wouldn't have to think about the carbon released from animals. This, to me is a step off the path of making our world environmentally friendly. Thinking this way is a big deterrent for meat eating people to want to be involved in doing they're part of keeping the world clean. Don't mark meat eating people as hater's of the world. Why don't we all work together and think of feasible ways to help. Having everyone stop eating meat is impossible, and naive. Recycling meat eater's aren't "posers"... they're regular people that recycle. No one can be perfect, I'm sure that you have driven in a car... so that makes you slightly a hypocrite. What's important is that EVERYONE does something they feel helps the environment. So, in my saying that no one environmentally perfect, living a normal life in America. We ALL should be environmentalist, and notice things around us and take steps to better our world. We're never going to be envirnomentaly perfect. What our job is, is to make sure we do what we can to be healthy, and keep the world clean. So, my opponents thoery of not being a envirnomentalist and eating meat has been proven 100% false.
Lizards are Cooler than Dogs

My opponent is the one making an error. Cool is defined as: "Moderately cold, lacking in warmth."[1] My opponent uses cool in the comparative degree, asserting that lizards are cooler than dogs. Alternatively, lizards lack in warmth more than dogs. I already proved that, in some instances, lizards have a greater body temperature than dogs. The resolution is not "Dogs produce more heat than lizards". It only encompasses the broad assertion that in all instances (evidenced in his use of the word "are", which means it must be true at all times), lizards are cooler than dogs, regardless of which produces more heat. Air conditioners (at least on the inside) are cooler than boiling oil, regardless that air conditioners produce heat (heat, at least in the physical sense, means, "The transfer of energy from one body to another as a result of a difference in temperature or a change in phase."[2] In other words, anything that can change temperature can produce heat) and the boiling oil does not. Also, as I already proved in the last round, the resolution needs to be upheld completely, with no exceptions. I also proved that lizards can have temperatures as high as 45 degrees C, much greater than a dog could ever reach. So, the mere fact that lizards can have higher body temperatures than dogs makes the resolution invalid, regardless of average temperatures between the two animals. Sources: [1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Lizards are Cooler than Dogs

TheSemanticist is making a philosophical error. He is equivocating between qualities OF the animal and the results from external factors acting UPON the animal. Heat is a quality of the dog, but it is NOT a quality of the lizard. The dog produces heat, so heat is a quality of the dog, but the lizard does not, so heat is not one of its qualities. You could add heat to a dog until it melts, but that doesn't make the heat you add a "dog" quality. Even if we accept that forces acting upon an object are a quality of an object (putting aside all the bizarre logical issues that come from that), as my opponent said the temperature of a lizard can vary between 15 and 45 degrees Celsius, while a dog stays at 38. Firstly, this means the middle temperature for lizards would only be 30 degrees (half-way between 15 and 45), which is much cooler than dogs. Secondly, if we consider forces acting upon objects to be part of their qualities, we would have to control for these external factors by considering the internal temperatures of both animals held in a room-temperature environment. It wouldn't be fair to compare a dog living at room-temperature to a lizard living in a 40 degree environment any more than it would be fair to compare a lizard in a 40-degree environment to a dog being melted in an oven. Room-temperature is 20 degrees Celsius. Therefore we are left with two options. 1. The qualities of objects ARE defined by the forces acting upon them. In this case, both the middle-temperature and the fair comparison temperature (room temperature) put the lizard's body heat much lower than the dogs. Lizards are cooler. 2. The qualities of objects ARE NOT defined by the forces acting upon them. In this case, dogs produce 38 degrees of heat while lizards produce none. Lizards are cooler. To conclude, no matter which perspective we take, the lizard is cooler.
Lizards are Cooler than Dogs

The resolution states that: "Lizards are Cooler than Dogs". My opponent interpreted cooler as a comparison between temperature. The definition of the word "are" is: "[The] present indicative plural and 2nd person singular of be."[1] The definition of the word "be" is: [It is] used as a linking verb between the subject of a sentence and its noun or adjective complement or complementing phrase. In this case be expresses the relationship of either essential or incidental equivalence or identity."[2] This means that if the resolution were to be upholded, the statement would have to be always true. All cold-blooded means is: "Cold-blooded creatures take on the temperature of their surroundings. They are hot when their environment is hot and cold when their environment is cold."[3] In other words, cold-blooded animals are ectotherms, meaning they conform to the conditions of their environment. The healthy temperature of a dog (an endotherm - an animal with a set normal body temperature, otherwise known as warm-blooded) is 38 degrees C.[4]Lizards, being ectotherms, has an enormous variation in normal temperatures. "Lizards (Tiliqua scincoides) regulated their internal body temperature by moving back and forth between 15° and 45°C environments..."[5] In fact, "In hot environments, cold-blooded animals can have blood that is much warmer than warm-blooded animals."[3] This means that many desert lizards have body temperatures in the 40+ degree C range, greater than that of a dog, which is 38 degrees C. Basically, the point I make is that while dogs can have body temperatures higher than that of lizards, the reverse can be equally true, especially in hot climates, and since the resolution indicates an essential equivalence, it must always be true, unlike what I just proved. The resolution is false. Sources:[1]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...[4]: http://hypertextbook.com...[5]: http://www.sciencemag.org...
God gives us free will

My video from youtube was about a robber who gave his victim a choice: hand over his money or die.The victim had the "free will" to pick, so the lawyer defending him called it suicide.See how absurd that is?God is telling me I have the "free will" to believe in him, while he holds me over the heat of hell. Real free will doesn't have a gun pointed to your head or torture promised to you if you're "wrong".You're whole rant about jail being torture has nothing to do with free will. It's a straw man argument.God may be a "genius" but he can't break the natural laws. He can't make a rock he can't lift. He can't make a math problem he can't solve. He can't know what I will do if I have free will, in which case he is NOT all knowing! So, if you want to say god is all knowing, then I don't have the free will to do anything else besides what he knows I'll do.Your cat story makes no sense at all. First of all, cats have a survival instinct, which means they will go after food to survive. That's not free will. That's like breathing. You have to breath to survive, even if you choose to hold your breath. If you want to survive, you have to breathe and eat. No choice there.Also, if they had found a mouse and ate that, they wouldn't be hungry for your treats, so you may THINK you know what they will do, but they may just have eaten and don't want your treats. So you don't know for sure the way god knows for sure.This was an easy debate. I don't think you understand what "free will" means.
God gives us free will

Secondly, I do not have adobe flash player. I would request you do not resort to YouTube for you evidence in further rounds please. Thank you. Well your first point is about hell and I can argue this. I agree hell is used to warn people because it does exist. However, what about prison? You are an Atheist. Therefore, you believe your current life is all that matters. Wouldn't prison be equivalent to hell for you then? It is torture, both physically and mentally. It is common knowledge that there are gangs, fights, and tons of violence in prisons (physical torture). Moreover, they are stuck in a cage non-stop which will cause obvious mental problems as shown in many cases (mental torture). If you need a citation that is fine, I will get you one if you request it. Moreover, it does exactly what you claim. Isn't prison doing what you claim about hell? I have said that I can not watch the videos. I'd appreciate it if you'd quote, or at least not use video sources. YouTube has lots of non-factual information. It would be best to stick to text sources anyways. Now to show you what the Bible states on this entire matter. This should end the entire debate. I'm going to post Romans 8:29-30: Romans 8:29-30 King James Version (KJV) 29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. So does that mean we have no free will (which is a Calvinist belief if I may add)? No. Some people say with "foreknow" it means that it is the ones he knew ahead of time, but if you read the Bible God knows every hair on your head, he created you, so wouldn't he already of known you? Exactly. In the context of the chapter what this is saying he would know what you do before you even do it. It doesn't mean you have no free will, it just means God is a genius. Let me give you an example. I have 2 cats. If I come home with cat treats and put them on the floor, I know they will already dart for the treats and eat them. Does it mean they have no free will? Of course it doesn't, they don't have to eat the treats. I just know them better, and I know they will eat them. So I hope that answers your questions. In my honest opinion, you can't be against hell and not against prison when they perform the same task. Hell exists so Heaven isn't destroyed, just like prisons exists so societies aren't destroyed. I await your response. May the LORD GOD bless you [please don't get offended] and I appreciate the debate.
God gives us free will

"god" is the god of the Bible The god of the Bible is all good, all knowing, all powerful, in all places at once and all just.So, how can I do anything else but what an all knowing god knows I will do?That would be impossible.Also, god supposedly gives me the free will to believe in him or not, yet he uses the threat of hell (eternal torture) to "influence" my "free decision"When your choices have biased consequences, it's not free will.
The rich should be taxed significantly to pay for foreign aid.

The rich (those who earn over double what is needed to live comfortably) should be made to pay 50% tax on any earnings over double what hey need to live comfortably. This debate assumes that the foreign aid is used effectively to save and improve lives significantly. This is not a debate on the effectiveness of foreign aid but whether we should give it and whether we should be forced to give it (taxed). First round is for acceptance. No semantics.
Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans

Counter Argument... 1)Cow milk may have active hormones, but so do other things that we eat such as burgers and chicken. It may be disgusting to you but that doesn't automatically correlate to any means of harm to the body. 2)Milk does have magnesium along with vitamins A and B, zinc, riboflavin, carbs, and protein. 3) Milk high content of water molecules actually makes it beneficial for it is a good source of re hydration. Drinking milk is healthier than drinking unnatural juice, soda, and iced tea. 4) Cow milk has feces and bacteria that is destroyed during the pasteurization process. Milk is not supposed to be placed at room temperature to begin with because to much time out of the fridge can cause the milk to be tainted. Milk should always be in the preserved in low temperatures which is why supermarkets always have milk in the cooler. 5) The claim that the cholesterol in mil is equivalent to 53 slices of bacon is far fetched. Eating two strips of pork bacon is unhealthier than consuming three glasses of milk. Milk contains about 20mg of cholesterol. 53 strips of bacon far exceeds that. In fact the Teagasc Dairy Products Research Centre has conducted recent research on the utility of milk in neutralizing the cholesterol content in the body. Sources 1)organicfacts.net
Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans

Good luck, Pro! Counter Arguments 1) Okay. .. what you basically said is true. No counter arguments can do that. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arguments 1) However, cow milk, what we drink, has 59 active hormones, which is very disgusting to think about. 2) Cow milk is useless because they lack magnesium. 3) 87% of milk is water, which means there are less than 13% of real milk. 4) Cow milk has feces. The feces are a major source of bacteria. The bacteria doubles when you leave it at room temperature for 20 minutes. 5) The cholesterol in three glasses of milk is equal to 53 slices of bacon. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources 1) . http://www.rense.com... _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments Good luck, Pro! This might be your first win, but I'm still going all-out!
Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans

Milk has been a part of the human diet for centuries. It is the best drink to consume for re hydration besides water. Milk deficiency can lead to osteoporosis. Milk supplies the body with a good source of calcium and vitamin B and D. Milk is good for the skin which is why it is an ingredient in most lotions. In addition, it provides protection for the enamel on teeth and prevents decay.
Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans

Great debate, Pro. Let's begin: "Drinking milk is healthier. .. " Well, juice is actually healthy. You can find many dairy products, but there is not much citrus fruit in the world. Therefore, juice is more healthier than a milk. 87% is milk. My round two arguments have not been refuted. Therefore, my argument stands. You did not refute about allergies, sugar, and saturated fat. In response to the cholesterol argument, this was from rense. com. Technically speaking, bacon does not have more cholesterol. I believe that you are confusing it with sodium. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Agree before: Pro Agree after: Pro Conduct: Pro Spelling and Grammar: Con Convincing Arguments: ? ??