BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should not eat animals.

This is my first debate, so I would like to start with something simple and pretty straight forward. There are three reasons why becoming vegetarian (defined as not eating the flesh of animals, a diet that may or may not include the consumption of eggs and milk) is both beneficial to the person and to the global community. 1. A vegetarian diet is healthier. All required nutrients may be obtained easily with a little attention, and a vegetarian diet has been shown to decrease chances of cancer and heart disease (because plant foods contain no cholestrol and very little saturated fat). 2. Animal agriculture is the number one human-caused source of the greenhouse gas methane, which is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. The rearing of cattle and other animals also contribute to the species extinction from habitat destruction, erosion caused by over grazing, excess land use compared to vegetable farming, and water pollution and eutrophication from animal waste and fertilized grazing pastures. 3. Common animal farming practices are cruel and unsafe. Most people can agree upon this, however, the morality of animal treatment is highly subjective and I would like to not focus too much on whether a chicken has the same feelings of pain, whether it really matters, etc. For the environmental impacts of animal agriculture: http://www.vegetarisme.be... For the American Dietetic Association's position on the vegetarian diet: http://www.eatright.org...
People should not eat animals.

Mathnerd No harm no foul. I encourage you to always know your opponent. Read from your opponents' profiles, other debates and comments. Make judgments. Profile. Challenge. You did all this. You did the right things. I detected a little ‘gotcha' - but that's fine. There was no animus in your statement. When debating or arguing via electronics, there is no tone of voice, facial expression, nor body language to give you clues of the opponent's demeanor. But, your statement carried no meanness. I believe that you read my response and inferred that I was angry. I wasn't. Just emphatic. I have a Mensa level IQ, but I can tell by the clarity of your arguments, your choice of handle, and your reasoning ability, that your IQ is probably higher than mine. The fact is, I presumed that your arguments would be in defense of PETA. I presumed incorrectly. I had no valid arguments against the case for vegetarianism, so I challenged you on inconsistency. Even though I do stand by my accusation, it in itself does not undo the rest of your argument. Ergo, you win.
People should not eat animals.

Mathnerd: The veggie/PETA conundrum is repeated in the specification of educational level. Even though we both selected "some college" I strongly doubt that your educational level is anywhere near mine. You are obviously very mature and intelligent but that lends little to gross education. Much of my education is self learned. In any case, though I have no degrees I do have 165 CU's - far more than enough for a 4 year degree. I also attended many not-for-credit courses. Additionally: 1. I completed an art appreciation course from NY Metropolitan Museum, equivalent to four semesters. 2. By your age I had read most of the content of the 20 volumes of ‘The Book Of Knowledge‘. 3. I am self taught and proficient in electronics, plumbing, TV, radio (built several civilian band radios in my teens), and most other electronics, as well as starting & running my own business in appliance repair (refrigerator, washer, dryer, dish-washer, and air conditioner ). I am proficient in automotive repair of all systems on cars to the early 1980's, as well as current autos with the exception of new control systems. I built a garage and a stable. I have performed virtually all additions, modifications, installations, repairs and improvements on all of my 25+ cars and several homes, over the course of 50+ years. 4. In my employment as a computer Hardware/Software Engineer, I attended over three thousand hours of class and lab. 5. I taught over one thousand computer professionals (almost all with college degrees - many with advanced degrees) over a ten year period. This took me to all parts of the world. I wrote a college course in computer technology and taught the course for three semesters. 6. I have subscribed for 55 years(almost continuously) to several technical magazines such as Scientific American. I have, often, discovered technical mistakes that I reported, especially in astronomy. 7. I am more knowledgeable in genetics than are most physicians. 8. I am knowledgeable in economics and statistics. My understanding of the stock investment universe is beyond most first year rookies on Wall Street. 9. My working vocabulary is a hefty 25K+ words. I could go on, but I've made my point. I am, indeed, educated. One question remains: Did I win the debate? IMHO - No! I'm voting for you. Congratulations on your first win.
People should not eat animals.

Thank you. I am also not a great supporter of PETA, because of their methods to obtain rights for animals. I want to say, however, that being pro-choice doesn't mean that I am pro-abortion. I certainly believe that women should try very much to prevent an abortion, but I believe in a women's right to choose, just as I believe that people should be vegetarian, but consider it a personal choice. Since you looked at my profile, also viewed yours, and I find it amusing that you consider yourself "educated" with some college, the same educational level that I have reached at thirteen years old. I don't believe we disagree about any issues involved in this debate except global warming, so there is really no reason to continue this argument. I think that debate.org should distinguish between support of PETA and vegetarianism.
Is christain hot!

i have never said he cheated on you but when a guy has a girl friend and then he goes off and has "friends with benefits" with another girl i think that would kind of be considered cheating. No he has not really talked to me but he has talked to my best friend about me and he really needs to grow a dork and say something to my face, Jerks are ugly and rude. I would rather have a kind of cute guy that is sweet and nice because they get cuter. Christain is a jerk and is gross. Haa Beat thatt!
Kids shouldn't eat junk food.

First, I will talk about bad things about junk food. Junk food has calories from sugar or fat with only a little fiber, protein, vitamins or minerals. Also, junk food can also refer to high protein food like meat prepared with saturated fat which makes it unhealthy, Second, I will talk about how unhealthy it is to eat junk food. Acorrding to wikipedia, it says that when junk food is consumed very often, the excess fat, carbohydrates, and processed sugar found in junk food contributes to an increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, weight gain, and many other chronic health conditions. Studies reveal that as early as the age of 30, arteries could begin clogging and lay the groundwork for future heart attacks. This is why junk food are unhealthy. Third, it also have problems with behaviors. In a study by the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the frequency of consumption of 57 foods and drinks of 4000 children at the age of four and a half were collected by maternal report. At age seven the 4000 children were given the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). The test was divided into 5 sections: Hyperactivity, peer problems, emotional symptoms and pro-social behavior. A one standard deviation increase in junk food was then linked to excessive hyperactivity in 33% of the 4000 children. In conclusion, children with excess junk food at four and a half are more likely to be in the top third of the hyperactivity sub-scale; however, there is not enough correlation between junk food and the other sub-scales such as emotional symptoms and peer problems. Fourth, the definition of junk food is : food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content. This also means that Junk food are unhealthy to kids. Fifth, junk food firstly make you fat. If you are kind of a diet, you should really stop eating junk food. How can we make children eat these bad food? Children should eat food with lots of fiber, protein, vitamins or minerals.
Should secondary school students be allowed to sell food to other students for profit.

What has become of my school and many others. My school is a brilliant grammar school with hardworking students. But something has plagued out school ethos. Students are now illegally selling food items to other students during break times for ridiculous amounts of profit e. g. +100%. Such items include cookies, doughnuts, candy products, drinks etc. What I find ridiculous, is how students will pay for one of the following products, yet knowing the price the seller bought the stock for. e. g buyer- one cookie= 0.50p retail buyer (student) 5 cookies= £1.00I would like to have my own debate on this subject. I would be con ( against selling ).
Should secondary school students be allowed to sell food to other students for profit.

I accept the opponent and I am looking forward to this debate. But before I start, I would ask if the opponent would not use Rebuttals at all. It seems that something (I don't know what) what sparked many students at my school to sell to other students during breaks. These students often sell food everyday and each student sells one main item such as doughnuts, drinks, cookies etc. I have noticed that often, any customers who are planning to buy such goods will ask the seller if he is selling food or if he has any food left by saying 'You Sellin?'.At this point while reading, you may think that this somewhat acceptable or slightly wrong in terms or morals.Now, allow me to tell you that these children who are selling such items are being able to get away with selling their items for more than double what they paid. An example of this is one cookie being sold for 50pence (the retail price is 20p/ 5 for £1). As you can see, this more than 100% profit being made which is quite outrageous. What I find even more outrageous is when students actually know that they are paying more than twice the rrp (even just from looking at the price sticker on the food packet which has been left on because the seller is too lazy to take it off), but still pay for these items anyway.I feel that these students who are selling these products, are exploiting the other students quite badly, in which they know that they are. They are also breaking many rules of my school's code in which they are not respecting other students by exploiting them. Our school is meant to be a top quality school with students who are meant to be in the 25% for intelligence. The worst was when a new student from a different school had tried to sell me doughnuts.Anyway, that set aside. I would like to whether anyone thinks that it is alright to sell food in school (yet exploiting others ) and why :p
The practice of eating meat is unethical

Forfeit. I should have addressed all your points, and due to exams going on my end, I was in a rush. My fault, my error. I attempted a counter-argument before realizing I was grasping at air, and though I've heard differing rules of debate (for one thing, you are permitted to counter an opponents points in the last round of a debate; this is extremely common in professional debates), you're right about the conceding points. I can't move around them without looking like a weasel. I'll happily redebate this topic under better circumstances on my end, but for now, I can't adequately finish. Again, forfeit, and thanks for your time.
The practice of eating meat is unethical

First off, you can't make assertions like chickens are not considered animals under the law and then refuse to cite them. You also only cited organizations like PETA, farmsanctuary and ecowatch; all organizations with a vested, biased (and in PETA's case, financial) interest in propagating stories that align with their viewpoints. But for the time being, I'll take most of what you said at face-value, since it doesn't really matter anyway. Because your entire statement is meaningless. The topic is whether or not eating meat is unethical, not whether or not eating this specific meat from this specific source that has faced these specific conditions is unethical. If that's what you're arguing, then you've created an argument that might hold up; but you didn't. I could just as easily say that there's absolutely nothing wrong with animals being raised, cared for well and then killed quickly and cleanly on independent farms and have the same credence as your argument. You also didn't take into account that eating meat, regardless of how it's obtained, isn't unethical. There's nothing inherently wrong with eating something dead. Our predecessor species wouldn't have evolved to their point without doing it, and nor would we have. The practice of how its obtained and how its killed could be very unethical, but that's, firstly, not important to a dead animal, and secondly, irrelevant to the act of eating meat. If you make that assertion, you also have to assert that everything you do involving corporations is immoral. For instance, every time you go to a bank and give them business, you've committed an immoral act; think of how many lives that the banking system has destroyed through foreclosures, high-risk loans... they tanked the entire economy five years ago. Or another example: if a father works as an assassin and hired gun and uses the money to pay for housing and food for his kids, have his kids committed an unethical act? Granted, the kids know what he's doing, but all the same; they've not committed an immoral act any more than you have when you enter a bank.
The practice of eating meat is unethical

Definition: "The practice of eating meat" will refer to the common and continued practice of consuming non-human animal flesh. Burden: The Pro side is burdened with defending that "Eating meat is unethical. " This topic refers to meat consumption as a general practice; therefore, the Pro side does not have to defend that every real and/or hypothetical instance of eating meat is unethical, but instead that in general one who eats meat is engaging in an unethical practice. Thank you, and good luck!
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ Historically Occurred

I apologize to my opponent; I had misunderstood the rules from round 1. I had thought I was able to rebut all arguments they had posted. Because of this misunderstanding, I will forfeit this round.Before I conclude, I do want to make some clarifications against what my opponent has said, because these statements are attacks on my character.1) If you are ever having a discussion with someone, if you find their logic to be flawed, argue that their logic is invalid or unsound. Do not insult the integrity of a person. 2) Confirmation bias is not a fallacy, it is a psychological phenomena. You seem to be making a habit of confusing psychological states with logical fallacies. Now, If I had made the claim that only Christian miracles are allowed, and no other, then that would be the fallacy of special pleading. However, I did not make that fallacy, as I never argued that only Christian miracles were valid.3) I've had many debates on this website over the course of a few years. My positions may have changed, and some debates I've played devil's advocate. You shouldn't associate past debates with the contemporary position of your opponent.4) Yes, Deism is by nature God not interfering with the world. I stated that this was more or less my current belief. Yes, Christianity is the opposite of Deism. I stated that the arguments in favor of Christianity seemed to be very strong, so strong that, because I have an open mind, I am open to changing my position based on the evidence. You should try the same. It may be that Christianity is false, which is why it's necessary to further investigate the issue as much as possible. For a brief conclusion, I want to reiterate that the point of this debate is to best describe the most likely scenario of what happened in the 1st century. Which narrative best explains the willingness of the first Christians to be martyred for the claims that they made? How did that religion spread throughout all of the world, across many different belief systems? I posit that the best explanation of events is that Christ was actually resurrected. The mass hallucination hypothesis is one that is not scientifically credible, and it doesn't explain how it spread.I thank my opponent for the debate. They seem to be very intelligent, but they need to work on the conduct of the way they debate in the future.
The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ Historically Occurred

Read all instructions for pre-acceptance requirements. Last opponent did not and garnered an automatic forfeit. I've made this debate impossible to accept to begin with, but this is a reiteration. This debate is over whether Jesus, a Judean individual in the first century, rose from the dead historically as recorded in the canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is not a spiritual resurrection or one of a new body, but instead one in which Jesus' body which he died in physically was resurrected as depicted in Luke 24:39 and John 20:27, complete with the wounds in his hands and feet. This is centered around historical evidence. I will not say nonsense like "people don't just rise from the dead; it's scientifically impossible" if my opponent doesn't resort to "God did it. "This is also separate from a question of God. Jesus rising from the dead may have been a miracle from God, or it may have been a physiological abnormality. Undisputed Pauline Epistles are the only sources to be used as by the hand of Paul himself. Round SpecificationsRound 1 is for acceptanceRound 2 is for opening arguments onlyRound 3 is for rebuttalsRound 4 is for counter rebuttals and conclusions only. (i. e. Counter rebuttals cannot address material brought up in Round 4, only material from 3)Debate Specifications 1) I expect a high level of education in my opponent on this subject. This includes knowledge of:-Disputed Pauline Epistles (Does not need to accept that they were not written by Paul)-The Synoptic Problem and Acceptance of the Two-Source Theory OR Farrer Hypothesis (Including Q and Markian Priority). I will be operating under Two Source assumptions but will change if my opponent is more accepting of Farrer. -Dispute over traditional authorship of the Gospels (Does not need to accept they were not written by the traditional authors)-Textual Criticism (Needs no stance on specific texts)2) Only undisputed Pauline epistles are to be used as written by Paul3) Use Proper Sources - This is up to the discretion of the debaters, but they should be well-respected, peer-reviewed authors, professors, and researchers with a PhD4) Pro has the burden of proof. It is much more difficult to prove this event did not happen than that it did. Am I to also prove the collapse of the unicorn meat market was not the cause of the fall of the Roman Empire? I will provide evidence against the resurrection, but it will be up to my opponent to provide the evidence for the resurrection. This will be the main place of discussion.5) Comment in the Debate before acceptance to discuss the rules and any ambiguities. This includes affirming the rules and clarifying whether Farrer or Two-Source is to be used. Acceptance without commenting is an automatic forfeit
Wasting Time Debating the Silly Things

Well said. I'm not saying that a silly, fun argument isn't just that, silly and fun but those things aren't a debate of worth and is truly a waste of someone's time. Time that could be spent doing something productive, something life changing or even donate that time by giving a helping hand down at the local shelter or food banks. Or hey, here's an idea, instead of debating which movie or video game is the greatest go out and be active, hang with friends, hike a nature trail or pick up the trash in your local park. Aren't those things fun too? And more, hanging with friends means you can have those silly, fun debates live and in color. Hiking is healthy and fun and picking up the trash at the local park, if done with friends is not only helpful to the community but can be fun as well. There's are hundreds of different ways of having fun that are more productive and interesting than debating the silly things on a web site.
Wasting Time Debating the Silly Things

Fun debates will still be very exhilarating and satisfying. One example is a death battle between two very powerful beings. Will Megatron win against Dumbledore? Will Mario be able to beat Percy Jackson? These are all very intriguing match-ups that test your brain and get it to working.Again, I stress that especially troll debates are fun. Here is an example: http://www.debate.org.... Even though Imabench completely derailed the debate, it was still humorous and silly how he completely turned the debate around using semantics, defining Poop as "People order our patties" and DNA as "Demonized Nambian Antelopes", which was hilarious! Even the president, TUF, agreed within his vote.....saying "Con trolled, but was funny as balls. Sorry but I still have to give PRO the points, bench. Just because your funny, does not mean you can rob the entire debate with semantics. But for the record, you made me lol" In addition, just because we do silly debates do not mean we really think that way. Does Ima really believe poop doesn't have DNA? Probably not. Does it really matter whether or not In a fight, Voldemort and Dumbledore would beat Megatron and Optimus Prime? Not really. But these debates train your brain and ability to research information.In fact, based on your logic, if people do all serious debates, they'll all be serious. But that is not always the case. The infamous Imabench mentioned above actually started off as a pretty serious debater. If you don't believe me, check out his profile's debates during the very beginning...http://www.debate.org....In conclusion fun debates are good, awesome, and should be continued to be done regardless of how silly and seemingly pointless they are.
Wasting Time Debating the Silly Things

Alright, I'm not so stubborn I can't see your point, but a real debate, one with real issues is far more exhilarating and satisfying, especially when you're the winner. I would think the satisfaction of winning a debate on something like which color is better would be less than awesome. If you want to state your opinion on whether One Direction, the boy band for this generation is better than, The New Kids on the Block, the boy band of another generation, than do so in the forums. Sure, it might be fun for someone of the older generation to argue the above stated debate with someone of this generation but I'd much rather read and comment on something with more substance. And really, starting a debate on whether the Transformers movie beats Pacific Rim isn't a true debate but an disagreement between a couple of argumentative, time wasters. Yes, I understand that debating is all about arguments for or against but if all people can think about is what movie is better or what game has better graphics, then the future is going to be one scary place.
Wasting Time Debating the Silly Things

Ahhhhh!!!! Accidental acceptance...please do your arugments fast, I don't have much time.Debating silly things is fun. There is a very well recieved member named imabench who is well known for his trolling and making ridiculous debates. Please see: http://www.debate.org....As you can see debating silly things are actually welcomed! As for movie debates, these can be very crucial, especially in deciding which movie is the best of all time--could it be the good old Godfather? Or does Raiders of the Lost Ark stand up as the top dog movie?Back to you, con.