BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet

I would like to add that I am a meat eater and love meat. I am not vegetarian. My argument is not that eating meat is wrong. My argument is that meet eating is harmful to the environment and that to stop climate change we need to switch to a vegetarian diet. Con's argument of the food chain does not help his argument. Con states "The pig eats the corn, and we eat the pig. But, we also eat corn. It's not like we're carnivores. We're omnivores; we eat both plants and animals! (and candy) " If the pig eats the corn and we eat the pig aren't we eating the corn through the pig? The corn gets its energy form the sun. The pig then eats the corn and then we eat the pig. However the corn will use up some of the suns energy so by the time the pig eats the corn, the pig is not receiving as much of the energy as the corn did. Then the pig uses up some more energy so there is less energy when we eat the pig and so it is ineffective and we should just eat the corn not the pig. Con then uses the argument that if we take out humans from the food web the chicken, co and pig will increase in population however this is not true as humans provide the habitat for these animals to live in. Take out the humans from the web and the chicken, pig and cow decrease in population and the corn increases. Now for my argument: If you turned vegan you will cut your carbon emissions by 50%. In a world where the climate is getting hotter it is time we started getting serious and one of the best ways to cut our emissions is to switch to a vegetarian diet. 80% of the deforested amazon is now used for cattle pastures. Deforestation destroys precious habitat for animals and releases harmful greenhouse admissions stored in the rain forest. Forest are the lungs of the earth and by deforesting them for livestock gets rid of earths lungs (trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen). Now you may say that producing vegetables uses just as much of the world's resources as meat does. Wrong. One pound pf meat uses 12 times as much land as one pound of soy. It uses 13 times as much fossil fuels to make meat over soy and it uses 15 times as much water to produce meat over soy.
Eating Meat Is Harmful To The Planet

Okay. Several things wrong with Pro's argument. Rebuttal: "In order to save our environment and feed a growing population we need to switch our diets to become vegetarian." In what way is the environment dying off? I know that meat comes from cows, chickens, and pigs, but it's not a non-renewable resource. Just get it from farms, which let the animals breed. Also, it's not like there's only 3 farms inn a state holding only 4 adult pigs at a time. As for the vegetarian part, we eat meat because it has protein. Fruits and vegetables don't contain protein. "We eat twice as much meat as we did thirty years ago and this needs to stop." This statement needs to be backed up. Also, are you referring to all of Earth's population eating twice the meat as from 30 years? Because population DOES grow, and that would make sense. If you're referring to a single person eating meat, give proof of this. "Nearly 30% of ice-free available land is taken up by livestock." livestock is animals on a farm. Thank you for showing that we have a sufficient amount of livestock to feed us humans. The next part makes no sense. "One billion people go hungry every day but most of our crops are consumed by livestock." My opponent's saying to stop eating the livestock, and eat the crops, but the crops get eaten by livestock. Therefore, we eat the crops. What does that do for Pro's case? And, again, it doesn't make much sense. Now for my argument. (Yeah, I often get into these debates and argue with new people, but take it easy.) I'll bring up the food chain as my argument: Corn -> Pig -> Human The pig eats the corn, and we eat the pig. But, we also eat corn. It's not like we're carnivores. We're omnivores; we eat both plants and animals! (and candy) Here's a food web (multiple food chains): Human ^ ^ / Corn -> Pig l l V l Chicken l l V V Cow -> Human This is a food web of cows, chickens, pigs, corn, and humans. The energy from the various locations are distributed nicely, I'd say. A tip to Pro: Do not forfeit Round 2. There's a glitch running around this site. If you forfeit a round, the entire debate is on hold until the glitch is fixed.
Resolved: The United States federal government should legalize all drugs

Today I'll uphold 2 main contentions, And then refute what was said by my opponent in the next round. Contention 1 is Crime Criminals don’t have access to the legal system, And must make their own justice. For example, They can’t file lawsuits or involve the police. As a result, Hardened criminals punish others themselves, Typically through violent assault or homicide, Much like in Breaking Bad. In Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, Tenured Harvard professor and fellow at the Cato Institute, Jeffrey Miron, Who has studied drug criminalization and its effects for 15 years concluded that legalizing illicit drugs would decrease the homicide rate from 25-75%, Saving thousands of lives. Additionally, Illicit substances such as methamphetamine and cocaine are the primary composer of the black market and much of the criminal underworld (i. E. Drug cartels, Gangs, Etc. ). If such substances were to be legalized, It would essentially kill a great deal of organized crime in not only the US but abroad. If one wished to take a counterexample, Alcohol prohibition directly caused the rise of mobsters such as Al Capone, And upon its repeal, The market was eradicated Oft human trafficking victims are become addicted via their kidnappers’ coercion, And become reliant on some sort of drug that can only be supplied by their gangster or pimp. Again, Legalization would kill their monopoly on illegal drugs, And they could try to buy said drugs at CVS or Walgreens. Additionally, The War on Drugs has directly led to mass incarceration, Which has made millions sit behind bars oft never accomplishing anything to benefit overall society. Contention 2 is Freedom Is it the government's duty to punish what are arguably victimless crimes, Drug use/abuse harms no one but the user. It isn’t as if drug users were actively going out and about harming others, Rather they’re only harming themselves. If we were to apply this principle equally across the board, Criminalizing any action that is harmful, The government would have to ban everything from food to sky diving to sexual intercourse. Which right do you have to decide what is permissible to go inside someone else’s body? Certain things are harmful to one’s self, Of course, But why does this mean they have to be criminalized?
Resolved: The United States federal government should legalize all drugs

Hey! How are you doin'? I'm daddydrerek616, And I don't believe that the United States federal government should legalize all drugs. First off, Smoking is for retards. No one wants to have health problems, Right? Well, The disabled honkeys seem to do. Now, Let's take a look at cigarettes. They cause lung cancer. No smart white person would want that, Unless they are disabled. Now, You might argue that they can't stop smoking, But my question is, Why did they start smoking them in the first place? I still don't get that. Why would you want lung cancer as a part of your life? Cigarettes should be banned because of this. Second, Marijuana. Niggers love to smoke it and get high everyday. It's so god damn annoying. It's already illegal in the first place, So why make it legal now? Also, No, We shouldn't have medical marijuana, Because the black people are just going to abuse the system so they can get high like the niggers they are. Third, Meth. Yeah, Screw that. Meth f#cks people up. 'Nuff said. I could go ON AND ON AND ON about how bad drugs are. Basically, Drugs are bad, And only disabled honkeys, Niggers, And other races smoke. Us smart white people are clean, And don't like drugs.
should the drinking age be lowered to 18

I as Con shall prove to the audience that in a matter of fact it’s worse for the drinking age to be lowered to 18. Because of the fact Pro did not provide any definitions pertaining to the debate—I shall provide it for you in the later segment of my debate. To make things fair I will provide one argument—as Pro only provided one DEFINITIONS Here are the definitions based off of www. dictionary. com Drinking: Addicted to or indulging excessively in alcohol . http://dictionary.reference.com... Age: A period of human life, measured by years by birth . http://dictionary.reference.com... Should: Must, ought . http://dictionary.reference.com... Lowered: To cause to descend . http://dictionary.reference.com... REBUTTALS I begin with the part where Pro says “iyes because 18 is wen your almost grown up n out the house” I do not understand what Pro has stated, so I can not rebuttal to anything he said. I urge Pro to clarify on what he said. Arguments DANGER I begin with the fact that statistics proved that restraining alcohol from people 18-20 showed a significant decrease in highway fatalities by 13%. Federal Highway statistics showed that there were at least 25,000 less fatalities on the highway when the drinking age was 21. Also a number of sexual assaults, and campus crimes are attributed to drinking—which means having the drinking age be lowered will just increase the chances of this happening. In conclusion the drinking age should not be lower or what I have said earlier will happen. . http://www.buzzle.com...
We do not need Government

Hello, thank-you for proposing this debate. I'd be more than happy to take you on and offer my personal perspective on the matter. In this argument, I will be providing my reasons for why we need a government and why without a government there would be no order or chaos. I have looked up the definition for government, and immediately have found a fallacy in your argument. The definitions of government are many, but one of the definitions completely shoots down your definition of government: "A governing body or organization, as: a. The ruling political party or coalition of political parties in a parliamentary system. b. The cabinet in a parliamentary system. c. The persons who make up a governing body.| So in essense, a government is a governing body OR organization. Yet you claim that an organized society does not mean government but an organized society is a body, a governing body, a government. I will not be arguing for or advocating any typical politcial party, any and all government except for fascist or dictator would be a better government than anarchy, which has hardly ever demonstrated order and group cooperation among a society before things soon fell into chaos and lawlessness. I will be arguing that government, although deterimental in many ways, and just as flawed as any system, is very necessary for us to even exist as a society, to even exist at all. To quote Windston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." And the definition of democracy is a Greek term that means "rule of the people", or "power by the people".
We do not need Government

I will be arguing that Government is not necessary for our fundamental living needs. I always forget to provide definitions in the first round which always set me back so this time I won't forget. The word Government implies "governance" over a group of people. If everyone is governing, then the word Government would no longer apply. It's like this: If everyone has power, than nobody does. Government always implies governance over a group of people by a class of representatives. An organized society does not necessarily means "Government." Simply because it's organized and systematic doesn't necessarily correlate to Government, which implies "governance." I will be arguing for a Left Anarchic society which is freedom from both Government and hierarchy. I will be arguing against the notion that we need a Government for our benefit as a society and that it is not only unnecessary to our living needs, but detrimental towards our functioning as a society. Con will argue that we do in fact need a Government for our living needs
Defense Authorization Act is Unconstitutional and Anti-American

Rules are simple, if this act infringes on any rights the bill of rights and constitution entitle us, then it is deemed unconstitutional. It's definition is interpreted by the supreme court, which has made it's interpretations very clear in the past. I find that this NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) infringes are rights of the american people, and has potential to be abused by the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is stated clearly that anyone that "A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces" I find the segment "or associated forces" and "committing a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces" especially troublesome since neither are clearly defined and are open to interpretation. Since this Act grants policing forces to imprison a US citizen deemed an enemy, and not state reason or for how long. How is one to challenge what is an associated forces? Would liking a facebook page that has links with the Taliban be considered as such? Would purchasing meat from a deli that is owned by a member of the Taliban who funnels his money directly to his organization count as "directly supporting such hostilities". These are major points this bill does not clarify. Since Policing forces do not have to use Miranda rights, or give due process which is entitled to us in the 5th Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This Act blatantly strips Americans of their entitled rights and is highly open to interpretation at the whim of the policing forces. This Act has the potential to be catastrophic to how our nation deals with domestic forces using their rights of free speech to challenge the government. As was a related incident in 2009 the DoD released a training pamphlet that defined low level terrorism to be a protest. This specific area was redefined as far as the public knows. (http://www.aclu.org...) This should show the clear intentions of how the DoD views public threats such as protests, as being against America.
Defense Authorization Act is Unconstitutional and Anti-American

I find that the newly approved Defense Authorization Act is Unconstitutional and Anti-American seeing as it strips our rights of due process and also neglects jurisdiction of other Government Services (CIA, NSA, ect). I am pro that this Act is Illegal, Unconstitutional, and Anti-American. Cons will need to agree with the entirety of the bill, and give supportive evidence as to why it is not illegal and unconstitutional.
can canada ever become a military power

you are indeed right in the future Canada does have the possibility to become one I must agree but on terms of more recently I don't think they have what it takes yet because once again they don't have the population for it but if a large war involving Canada occurred maybe they might take extra steps and end up as a military power that being said a reason the wont become a military power is because they simply don't need or want to they have almost 0 wars to fight and thus don't need a strong military
Prayer is pointless.

This isn't going to go much further obviously, since you refuse to answer my only real question and reason for this argument... Will prayer change Gods plan? You keep stating thing about what God wants without any sort of proof. I can do the same... My opponent claims to know what God is thinking, I spoke to God this morning and he informed me that my opponent is actually speaking with Satan!!! Vote Pro!!! See?... That's not really fair. Please stick with scripture...
Prayer is pointless.

Thank you for posting My opponent makes a good point by stating that "according to James 5:16 "Therefore confess your sins to each other…." I take this verse to mean confess to a priest or pastor or even the person you sinned against about your sins.". When looking at this verse, we find that it is completely different from my meaning of confession. When you pray, you just don't confess your sin, you ask for redemption. Point one. "Once again, if God is omnipotent why do you need to pray for him to guide your thoughts. He can guide your thoughts without you praying." This statement might be true; however, just like God wants us to communicate with him, to talk about our problems, he also want us to present our problems and as for guidance no matter what we believe. Point two: My opponent succeeded to my second point does giving me an automatic advantage. In conclusion: I presented a concrete case to protect my belief whereas my opponent did not present a case and succeeding to my point. For these reason i urge you to vote in my favor.
Prayer is pointless.

I assumed that was just the title of the debate, in fact I stated my point in my opening arguments with "Isn't asking God to deviate from his plan pointless? " What was meant by "pointless" is it will not change Gods Plan and if it does wouldn't that make him imperfect… but you accepted before I had a chance to change it. I will address your points and I ask you to revisit my original post taking into consideration the difference now in the topic. "According to the scripture, prayer is a means to communicate with God as well as confess ones sin for redemption. According to a recent article by . http://www.sundayschoollessons.com......, "We pray because God wants us to tell him what is on our minds. Even though he sees and understands our situations better than we do, he still wants to hear from us in our own words. "" Now, I'm not sure what verse or what scripture tells you "Prayer is a means to communicate with God as well as confess ones sins for redemption. " But according to James 5:16 "Therefore confess your sins to each other…. " I take this verse to mean confess to a priest or pastor or even the person you sinned against about your sins. It doesn't necessarily mean speak to God, although I'm sure it could be taken that way. Also, I am certain that the statement "He still wants to hear from us in our own words" Is quite an assumption considering you cannot claim to know the thoughts of God. What verse or scripture states that? Point 1: I didn't fully get into this point because it was so far off my original topc, however one part i will touch one quickly "it allows God to guide our thoughts in making the right decisions. " Once again, if God is omnipotent why do you need to pray for him to guide your thoughts. He can guide your thoughts without you praying. He is all-powerful. He is not a car, he doesn't need an ignition source to be able to run he can talk to you freely without you having to speak first. Point 2: I have to succeed on this point, I have no argument against it creating a bond with God. It very well may do so. It may also do good for the person doing the praying. It may make people feel closer to God. Or better about themselves on this point I have no argument other than it shouldn't, because he does not exists it is just false hope. But that is a whole other debate… Also, I will not accept religious websites as a form of proof. For a pastor or priest to claim to what God wants or what he is thinking is, I believe, very presumptuous.
Prayer is pointless.

I would also like to welcome my opponent to the web site and hope he fully enjoy the function included. I would like to begin by stating that prayer to most is a means to communicate with God and not just to ask for deeds. My opponent stated in his argument that "If God is omnipotent then he knows everything" however he failed to realize the meaning of prayer. According to the scripture, prayer is a means to communicate with God as well as confess ones sin for redemption. According to a recent article by . http://www.sundayschoollessons.com..., "We pray because God wants us to tell him what is on our minds. Even though he sees and understands our situations better than we do, he still wants to hear from us in our own words. ". With thisw been said we must move to the point or significance of prayer. Point one: privilege In other to fully understand the significance of prayer, we must know the meaning of prayer. Prayer like i mentioned earlier is communicating with God. prayer is noting more than a privilege purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ, it allows us to communicate with the creator of all things as well as giving us a window of redemption as it also allows us to confess our wrong doing and as for redemption. "Prayer is a privilege purchased by the blood of Jesus Christ. Christ died for this end, it cost him the shedding of his blood, so that we, through him, might have entrance to the throne of grace. And will you let such a privilege as this lie still? If you do, so far as is in you, you cause his blood to be shed in vain. For if you neglect the privileges gotten by that blood, you neglect the blood that procured them. [The Puritans on Prayer p.17]" (. http://www.unionchurch.com...). In addition to this, just like communication is a vital part of a relationship, prayer allows us to form a relationship with God, it allows God to guide our thoughts in making the right decisions. Point two: Communion Prayer allows us to connect spiritually to God, to bring to earth the divine teaching of God. Prayer feels every activity we perform with meaning as it allows us to feel and experience the holiness of that which is spiritual and heavenly. Prayer as i mentioned earlier creates a bond with all that is holy and everlasting. "Prayer is communion with God. Prayer is that act of going into God's presence to be with the Lord. Prayer is bringing God and His resources into our earthly realities. Prayer is drawing upon divine resources to influence human reality. Prayer is breathing the breath of heaven. Prayer is the master key to everything we have been called to do. Without it our activities are empty, human and lack the breath of heaven. It is temporal and will never last. " (. http://knol.google.com... #). In conclusion prayer is the the master Key to all things in God.
Prayer is pointless.

First time debater, not exactly sure how the structure of a debate works but i love to argue, especially about religion and/or the existence of God(s). Please forgive my grammar and correct me where i am wrong. I am going to try and keep this short and sweet especially because i have no idea what I'm doing. If God is perfect[2],[3],[4] and God has a plan[5], then why do we pray? Isn't asking God to deviate from his plan pointless? If God is omnipotent then he knows everything[1]: the future, the past, what we all are thinking, and what we all want. So why ask him for something if he already knows what you want, and what you are going to get out of life? Also, if he does "Change his mind" isn't that proving God wrong? Does that make God imperfect? Or does that make prayer pointless? [1] "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns!" (Revelation 19:6) [2] Matthew 5:48 (Jesus): Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [3] 2 Corinthians 13:9 For we are glad, when we are weak, and ye are strong: and this also we wish, even your perfection. [4] Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. [5]"For I know the plans I have for you, says the Lord, they are plans for good, not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11