BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mosquitos should not exist.

Thanks to my non-nerdy, asian opponent for posting this unique debate. I will address my opponent's arguments and then provide some of my own. "I believe that everything is created for a reason, a purpose, but I could not think of a single reason for some annoying insect like the mosquito to exist." This is a shaky premise to begin with, and one my opponent's entire argument thus far hinges on. All science at hand shows that NOTHING was created, much less for a purpose. If my opponent wishes to use the argument that all things were created with a purpose, there is no purpose for the mosquito, hence mosquito should not exist, she will first have to provide evidence that everything was not only created, but created to have a specific purpose. "In fact, instead of even benefiting society in any way, it passes diseases like West Nile Virus to people. Not to mention the fact that once you get bitten, its hard to stop scratching the mosquito bite. Simply enough, the mosquito is not good in any way but is bad in a lot of ways." Despite what many members of the species Homo Sapiens like to believe, all life on this planet does not revolve around us. Whether or not a lifeform "should" exist has nothing to do with how annoying they are or how many humans die each year as a direct result of that lifeform. It comes entirely down to how well that species survives in this giant rat-race we call life. Needless to say, having existed for millions upon millions of years, with 3,500 species (discovered) and 41 genera,[1] mosquitos are excellent survivors. To put it another way, thanks to the constant check-and-balance provided by evolution, if mosquitoes SHOULD not exist, then they WOULD not exist. Thanks to my opponent. [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mosquitos should not exist.

This topic is pretty straight foward. I believe that everything is created for a reason, a purpose, but I could not think of a single reason for some annoying insect like the mosquito to exist. In fact, instead of even benefiting society in any way, it passes diseases like West Nile Virus to people. Not to mention the fact that once you get bitten, its hard to stop scratching the mosquito bite. Simply enough, the mosquito is not good in any way but is bad in a lot of ways. I thank anyone who accepts this debate.:)
Oranges are healthier than apples

Well, there are no people who are so hungry and they eat oranges, even if they love! Oranges can't help a lot. Although oranges have more calories than apples, the additional energy they provide in the diet is balanced by the additional nutrient benefits. Oranges provide more vitamins, minerals and fiber compared with apples, while apples have more sugar than oranges, which is bad for or teeth and liver. So oranges are a better choice. People eat different kinds of food depend on their health conditions. People won't eat too much a day and if they have any diseases, they avoid eating some kind of food/fruit. Apples are good because of its amount of calorie, but for e.g., a person eats about 1 or half an apple and orange, the nutrients in oranges are higher than apples, so although apples contain very low contents of essential nutrients, so there is less of a health risk, they can't benefit your health. And I don't know how ridiculous is this debate, hope you will explain to me :)
Oranges are healthier than apples

Whilst Oranges may typically contain more calories than apples, they are also high in acid. Eating oranges in excess can contribute to heartburn and other problems with the ingestion of food too high in acid. Oranges also contain Vitamin C which when eating in excess, say by a extremely hungry person, who's only source of joy is eating oranges, can lead to diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, heartburn, bloating or cramps, headaches, insomnia, and kidney stones. Whilst apples contain very low levels of acid and no Vitamin C whatsoever. If i were to eat 10000000 apples, because i was very hungry, i would not get any of these problems i have just mentioned, but if i ate the same amount of oranges, the acidity would have killed me a long time before i finish. Apples contain very low contents of essential nutrients, so there is less of a health risk, with mass consumption And i dont even know why i took this ridiculous debate, but i will try my best :)
Why people should eat less meat

Even though my opponent stated that in her first claim that with meat people will have an increased risk of death from heart disease and in her second claim that meat has a high risk of kidney failure; these claims mentioned are just probabilities of risks that meat may cause. A risk as stated by Merriam- Webster, is just a situation, in this case, eating meat, that is associated with exposure to danger. Eating meat may expose one to danger but does not actually mean they ARE in danger. Thus, people should not eat less meat because meat contains beneficial proteins for the human body which aid in muscle growth. Not only that, but meat contains essential nutrients. As stated on November 19, 2010, by The Medical Daily on Healthy Living, they mention that meat is a good source that provides one with nutrients such as Vitamin A, Vitamin B, and Vitamin D, and minerals like iron. These vitamins, such as vitamin B is essential to mental health, by which any insufficiency of this can cause "confusion, impaired senses, aggression, insomnia, weakness, dementia, and peripheral neuropathy" (Araki 2018). Thus, one should eat meat because it provides one with essential nutrients and proteins needed to live. As stated by Kadya Araki, who is a coach and nutritionist - bodybuilder, on April 9, 2018, in an article titled,"Why Human Need To Eat More Meat For Health," states that "Meat consumption is blamed for high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, and obesity. But if you want to point fingers at the culprit behind these health issues, point at sugar. Blame the overconsumption of carbohydrates like grains and potatoes that break down into sugar in the body" (Araki 2018). Hence, if meat was to be considered deadly and harmful then why do so many people continue consuming it all over the world, it is because it actually benefits the body and is just part of human nature. Meat is needed to keep one functioning. Merriam Webster. (2018, April 25). Risk. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com... Araki, K. (2018, April 09). Why All Humans Need to Eat Meat for Health. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from https://breakingmuscle.com... Reporter, S. (2010, November 19). 3 Benefits of Eating Meat. Retrieved May 6, 2018, from https://www.medicaldaily.com...
Why people should eat less meat

Though my opponent states that meat contains vitamins and minerals that aid for muscle growth, my opponent fails to mention that red meat is in high risk of many complications like kidney failure. According to an article in July 2016 that was published in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, "participants of a study that were in the highest 25 percent of red meat intake were found to have 40 percent increased of kidney failure, compared to those in the lowest 25 percent". The co- author recommends that people should intake more of a different protein rather than meat. According to the study co- author Dr. Woon-Puay Koh of the Duke-NUS Medical School on Singapore, "'Our findings suggest that these individuals can still maintain protein intake but consider switching to plant-based sources; however, if they still choose to eat meat, fish/shellfish and poultry are better alternatives to red meat"'. THis shows also that there are other products that contain protein, us humans do not always have to consume meat.
Why people should eat less meat

CON POSITION - PEOPLE SHOULD NOT EAT LESS MEAT. The purpose of meat is for human consumption, as one's body is designated for eating meat - it is part of nature. Meat comes in different shapes and sizes, by which there are different cooking methods for meat and ways to consume it. As stated on January 15, 2018, by The Editors of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in an article titled, "Meat: Food, " states that "Meat is valued as a complete protein food containing all amino acids necessary for the human body" (Britannica, T.E., 2018). Thus, people should not eat less meat because it has essential ingredients - proteins, such as amino acids - needed for the functioning of the human body system. Therefore, people should not eat less meat as the consumption of meat is beneficial for the body. One reason why consumption of meat is healthy for a person is that it helps for muscular growth. As stated by Kadya Araki, who is a coach and nutritionist - bodybuilder, on April 9, 2018, in an article titled,"Why Human Need To Eat More Meat For Health," says that " Meat also contains vitamins and minerals that aid in muscle growth like zinc, which assists in muscle repair, and iron, which boosts energy levels and combats fatigue. Meat also contains creatine, a nitrogen-containing compound that improves protein synthesis and provides muscles with energy, encouraging muscle gain" (Araki 2018). This evidence shows some of many benefits meat consists of, such as that of aiding with muscle growth and healthy proteins, which proves how people can only benefit from consumption of meat. Hence, there should be no reason for one to decrease the amounts of meat consumed. Overall, people should not eat less meat due to reason that the myth about eating meat, that it is harmful nutrition and should not belong in a healthy diet, is a fallacy. One should not decrease the amount of meat consumed because they are depriving themselves of the nutritious, helpful, and healthy proteins meat is composed of, which help in muscular growth. Britannica, T. E. (2018, January 15). Meat. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from https://www.britannica.com... Araki, K. (2018, April 09). Why All Humans Need to Eat Meat for Health. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from https://breakingmuscle.com...
Why people should eat less meat

Many people in the world that we live in eat a certain protein that we love to call meat. People eat meat raw, medium rare,and etc. Any food place around us contain multiple styles of certain meat. But does anyone understand that consuming too much of this product is unhealthy for the body? Well, it is. One reason as to why eating too much meat leads to an unhealthy body is that people will have an increased risk of death from heart disease if they consume the x amount of red meat. According to a research team led by Dr. FRank Hu of the Harvard's School of Public Health, out of approximately 37,000 men of a study from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study in 1986 and the 83,000 women from Nurse's Health Study in 1980, " Almost 24,000 participants died during the study, including about 5,900 from cardiovascular disease and about 5,900 from cancer. Those who consumed the highest levels of both unprocessed and processed red meat had the highest risk of all-cause of mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality. Due to this, the mortality increases by 13%". But, if you replace red meat with different types of protein, the risk oh heart diseases will decrease. According to Dr. Frank Hu of the Harvard's School of Public Health, "Substituting one serving per day of other foods-like fish, poultry, nuts, legumes, low-fat dairy and whole grains-for red meat could lower the risk of mortality by 7 to 19%.The deaths could have been prevented if the participants consumed fewer than half a serving per day of red meat".
Atheists strictly create their own false reality.

First, I do not believe that God exists because the idea of a God contains the possibility for a God to create the universe. That sounds pretty illogical captain, but you or anyone else may believe what they want, just don't assume we have to do the same. In terms of the larger picture, I think you're referencing scientific data that continues to prove claims from the bible and religious scholars to be false. If you suggest that we should believe in this "bigger picture" without any consideration of its logical flaws and inconsistencies then i would disagree and suggest that taking that placing that same blind trust into other situations would cause disaster. I can't be sure what you're saying in the next paragraph. I don't believe Atheists would be murders without God and i don't believe that's hypocritical. People can decide to be moral without the thought of God because they are genuinely good people. That's just a different view on life. If I knock a drunken man unconscious because he was going to shoot another man, is that event all good or all evil? If i listen to my ipod, have I done an all evil deed or an all good deed? I don't believe anything is completely one or the other, although some like your hypothetical terrorist attack can be very close to pure evil, while on the other hand the early american revolutionists against the British and Irish against the British used terrorist acts to free themselves. Many would argue their actions were virtuous to save themselves from oppression. Atheists, Christians, and any other group of people have different ideas about sex before marriage. I don't think someone would regret premarital sex ONLY if they catch a disease. In fact I'm pretty sure someone would still get ticked off if they got a disease while consummating marriage. I don't believe in faith out of fear. If your church cannot convince me of its principles because of their virtue then i certainly won't be turned onto their religion out of fear. I don't believe in heaven, so there will be no loss of heaven when i die because it didn't exist in the first place. I'm not sure what happens to us all honestly, but i don't assume to know the answer beforehand. There are about 7 billion people in the world and less than 1% are homosexuals, and there have been homosexuals for all of our existence. Why is that such a threat? It's not a contagious disease and the children under the care of homosexuals are no more likely to be homosexual. I don't understand why you would oppose that and what this has to do with atheists creating their own false reality. I'm not going to address a list of stereotypes. Maybe you should be "enspired" more by the real atheists you may have met in real life rather than the imagined totally evil atheists you speak about.
Atheists strictly create their own false reality.

Well, this has turned out to be more fun that i thought. Starting off, I agree that everyone will one day die, but I don't believe sinning will expedite that process. If atheists are correct, that there is no God, then the sin of disbelief will make no difference. If you're saying that all atheists are sinners in terms of corruption or immorality, then i disagree completely. I've met many upright atheists who don't consider themselves immortals, but don't believe in heaven. I don't think that generalization holds true since many atheists argue mostly about behavior on this planet. What scientific data are you referring to? If you're referring only to the big bang theory then you're mistaken; many atheists do not believe in that theory or do not know much about it. I personally haven't decided how the universe began, but i'm comfortable not knowing rather than assuming a supernatural being created it. You're third paragraph is even harder to understand than the last because of the grammatical errors, but if you're saying atheists don't believe hating man is wrong, then i once again disagree and suggest you do not know many atheists. Many buddhists don't believe in a God yet they comprise one of the largest and peace-loving organizations in the world. I also agree with you that drunkenness doesn't mean pleasure in life, there are other things more valuable to someone, but why would an atheist be unable to enjoy these things? I don't think calling all atheists selfish cowards adds to your argument. We could call each other names all day, but that won't accomplish anything. I believe what you're talking about depends on the situation, but an atheist once again wouldn't have a harder time doing what's right than a christian, it depends on the person. Please try to limit the grammatical errors because i sometimes can barely understand your sentences. Nevertheless this has been a great argument so far and thanks for bringing this issue up.
Atheists strictly create their own false reality.

Atheists, myself included, do not create false reality. Rather atheists subtract one element from the traditional man's world view: God. I don't believe disagreeing with this concept suddenly makes someone a believer in a "false reality." To answer your questions: An atheist is someone who chooses to not believe in God. This is a religious belief because the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. Although religious beliefs such as Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism, and Atheism may not believe in the popular notions of God or Satan, I don't believe that deems the followers of such religions to be delusional. They may have created an alternative theory, but not an alternative world. Atheists derive their conclusions from many different sources; some from anger, some from grief, and others from long considerations about faith. Anyone who choses a religious belief has been influenced by what others say, although this does not mean they chose a faith on that alone. Life is more complicated than the negative and the positive and saying all atheists had considered life in such simple terms would not be true. I'm an atheist, my friend, because I do not believe in the teachings of organized religion. It is not out of anger, sorrow, or frustration, but out of contemplation that i have chosen this type of philosophy. I know other atheists who have chosen their belief for the same reason. I hope my first submission to this site has been well-constructed and will be well-received, thank you for the opportunity to discuss such a deep issue.
Atheists strictly create their own false reality.

Atheists strictly design, mould and create their own false reality. From what though? What is a Atheist? Is a Atheist someone who just does not believe in God or Satan, or is it more? Where does the conclusion come from to suggest there is no God or Satan? It is just by understanding or listening to what others have to say on this topic? What scientists say and claim, what other individual lives say about God and Satan? Do Athiest gather up all the negitive things about humans lives induldge in, there by creating a reality from other human beings mistakes? What I am suggesting is that Atheists simply create their reality from two points, the negitives and the possitive sides of life, and create a reality from that. God is all good, Satan is all evil, take both side of that and you are left with no God or Satan. Simple really. May you, my Con friend begin. Note: Must be a Atheist please.
America Should Change Focus on Incarceration to Rehabilitation

Hope debating with you is a nice experience. Incarceration as a system of dealing with offenders is a system which works far better than rehabilitation. To see why you have to look at the purpose of a criminal justice system. The purpose of a criminal justice system is to ensure that society is protected from perpetrators of unwanted activities. Such a purpose is served far better by ensuring that the perpetrators of criminal activities are taken off the streets and put behind bars for sustained periods rather than them being allowed back into society after a short while.
This house would not ban smoking #2

My previous debate on this topic was forfeited so here I go again. I will be the Pro in this motion and I will carry the burden of proof to show why smoking should not be banned. The rules for each around is as follows. R1: AcceptanceR2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments) R3: RebuttalsR4: Counter-attacks R5: Final Argument (without Rebuttals) I look for a great debate.I am going to open four debates on the same topic to investigate the aspect in this field more widely.
Examinations should be banned

Learning better test taking skills could be a huge benefit, if you are having trouble getting "stuck" when taking tests, but doing well in school aside from that. Sometimes, we simply get nervous and do not perform as well on tests as we do on other assignments, however, tests are important because we do need to use our minds to memorize facts and learn how to deal with the stress of taking a test. It is a good lesson for later in life, as mariafu points out in her response to this debate. I had a teacher in grade school who helped me learn to relax and do better when I was nervous about a particular exam. He said to stick with my first answer, as that is usually the correct one. He also told me that if a question had me stumped, not to dwell on that one, but move onto another one and come back to the one that I was having trouble with after my confidence was up from answering some of the other questions that I found easier. I also found that studying in a group was beneficial for me. Everyone needs to learn what study and test taking habits work for them. Hope this helps.
Examinations should be banned

Lol...I definitely agree with you because examinations will help the students' education. Many of the students at my age are too tired or not bothered to study, but when the teachers prepare a test for them, they actually start stirring back to their studies. This is because they are scared that they will get low scores, which will affect their grade. A lot of people knows that they need high degrees to go to a good well-known university and get a great career. They just don't realize that the time they are lazing about will slow down their extreme knowledge to poor. I strongly disagree with examinations being banned, it is a great experience to remind students about studying.
patriotism

I think everyone understands it, it's simply taking pride in you're country and supporting you're country?! But i don't think we need to push people into that, if you support it good for you if you don't alright. I think we already have enough teaching about it in our history classes not to mention the pledge of allegiance, flag raising, national anthem. I mean hell we have recruiters at least 3 times a week?! you don't think thats enough?!. Nick at our school we have a memorial that we raised so much money for?! You don't think thats patriotic enough?
patriotism

Teaching students about wars and teaching students about patriotism are two different things. We learn about wars and such in history class. If people aren't practicing patriotism that doesn't mean we won't have a government, it just means we have a government that has people that don't completely support them. I'm not saying NO ONE should practice patriotism I'm just saying i don't think it's something else we need in school? We have patriotism EVERYWHERE we learn about it every day from national holidays to simple tv commercials. I don't think it should be in schools.
patriotism

Alright well i guess i would like to start this off with the definition of Patriotism. Patriotism;–noun, devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty. With saying that im not really sure you can say we wouldn't have school but i guess i can take that as a personal opinion? I think teaching patriotism in school is completely unnecessary because i don't think that the support of there country should be forced upon them. I think that if there is something going on in the country that they are not behind they should be able to openly express there disappointment. Patriotism is pretty much all around us i just don't think thats something else we should add to the curriculum, you can learn about patriotism from any where. I don't think it should be in the schools.