BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If US should get involved with Isis

Your Huffington Post quote, shows no reason of how President Obama ignored Congress, and how he never consulted them on what America was going to do. In the contrary of your statement of Huffington Post, PBS Newshour states and I quote, "Thus far, there has been little clamor among congressional leaders for Obama to seek approval from Capitol Hill before proceeding with military action in Syria. And with the midterm elections just over two months away, lawmakers may be even less inclined to take a politically risky vote on military action." Rep. Steve Cohen said, "I see no reason to come to Congress because, if he does, it"ll just become a circus." Also, it is not the president who is lacking authority, it is congress. ongress should "certainly" authorize any military action in Syria. Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat and White House ally, has also called for a vote on the president"s broader strategy for going after the Islamic State group. To rebuttal your statement "he is supposed to consult with Congress over these matters, especially if he does plan on engaging war." The Constitution of America gives only Congress the power to initiate war. The main point is this: Islamic State group poses a threat to the U.S. and its allies from inside Syria, whose government is unwilling or unable to stop it. This is why The United States of America should be involved with the affairs of ISIS and both Syria.
If US should get involved with Isis

Oh, really? Then why does the Huffington Post write, "Two progressive senators declared Friday that President Barack Obama lacks authority for his growing war on the Islamic State, and are demanding that he immediately present Congress with a plan and a request seeking that authority." Obama is not seeking authority from Congress for the military actions he is taking in regards to ISIS. He is supposed to consult with Congress over these matters, especially if he does plan on engaging in a war. The point is that he is not consulting with Congress, which is causing tensions. You have to think that if we do invade and take more military action, we are going to be engaging in a war against ISIS. Isn't a war, by definition, "a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." And isn't this "three-stage" plan you talk about basically outlining a military strategy that would build towards a war? A war would further devastate our nation financially. Like I keep saying, our nation knows too little of ISIS and lacks the support from other countries to engage with ISIS. ISIS will feed off our involvement like a parasite. They want to make us mad, which is why they have killed the two Americans that were held there. They want to see us try to stop them, which is a frightening thought. We need to further assess the situation before we take action.
If US should get involved with Isis

FIrst of all, Obama has not done anything that would disobey the laws of Congress. Meaning, he has not declared war towards ISIS. If he was to do this without asking Congress, he would be impeached. As Obama said in an interview,"I just want the American people to understand the nature of the threat and how we're going to deal with it and to have confidence that we'll be able to deal with it," the President told interviewer Chuck Todd. He said action will include military, diplomatic and economic components. He laid out a three-stage plan that starts with actions the U.S. has already taken: gathering increased intelligence on ISIS, and using airstrikes to protect American personnel, critical Iraqi infrastructure like the Mosul Dam, and cities such as Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. In this it says nothing about declaring war, and going against Congresses power. The United States" focus on the Islamic State has given cover to Syrian forces, they say. That has freed Mr. Assad"s military from worrying about checking the militant group"s advances and allowed them to continue to focus attacks on the greater political threat " less extreme Syrian-based insurgent groups bent on ousting Mr. Assad and the communities where they hold sway.
If US should get involved with Isis

In that website you provided, it does not say anything about us "defeating ISIS more than ever." I agree that ISIS is a sophisticated, well funded group AND THAT it is beyond anything "we have ever seen." This tells us how extraordinarily complicated this group is, which is why it is much more difficult for us to try to solve this problem than just go in and put simply, blow things up. You have to consider that this group has been around for a long time, since 1999 to be exact. We are still trying to figure out exactly how much of a threat they are in regards to invading our homeland. They may be able to and they may not, but this still does not change the fact that the effects of our involvement would be damaging to our nation. Besides, as I mentioned earlier about our relations becoming tenser with Syria as a result of our involvement, we will also have tense relations within our own government. This is a very stressful situation and not everyone is on board with Obama's plan for involvement. In fact, becoming involved could set a negative precedent of engaging in armed conflict without official congressional approval, which is supposed to be approved by Congress. Only Congress can declare war; this is a power assigned to Congress only. So with Obama starting to make plans of his own, this could not only ruin our relations with Syria, but within our own branches of government. Our temporary actions that may seem so noble now will prove to be catastrophic effects on our nation later.
If US should get involved with Isis

To reply to your "sending drones and air-strikes," they already have, and they are helping defeat ISIS more than ever. At statement from central command (Centcom) said the attacks on Kobani hit six Islamic State fighting positions, destroying them. Centcom also said that a "heavy weapon" was destroyed. Read more at http://www.wnd.com... Last Monday, western allies vowed a tough fight against fighting ISIS on Monday after the terrorist group called for attacks against those countries.These countries, part of the coalition taking on ISIS, were responding to a new audio recording in which a senior ISIS leader, for the first time, explicitly called for attacks in the United States and on the home soil of Western allies. Now should we just let ISIS come on in to our country? No, we shouldn't. We should stop ISIS now before they become an even larger threat. I would like to begin this round with a quote from the US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has called ISIS "as sophisticated and well funded as any group that we have seen . . . beyond anything we have seen." The group has former military officers who can fly helicopters, spot artillery, and maneuver in battle. ISIS is increasingly a hybrid organization, on the model of Hezbollah"part terrorist network, part guerrilla army, part proto-state.
If US should get involved with Isis

In regards to your argument of the FBI warning about attacks by ISIS, there are a lot of things that are threatening our homeland, including ISIS. However, there is a lot of concern in just saying, "Let's go fight off ISIS! For freedom!" In fact, that is a rather bold and non-convincing argument. There is more to politics than just going off to fight the problem. There are consequences to these actions. And even though ISIS has killed two Americans tragically, ISIS has also taken other hostages from other countries as well. You may ask yourself: Why aren't these countries engaging in ISIS? It is because as much as you may like to think, ISIS is very mysterious. We do not know much exactly on them at all. It is hard to go up against a threat that we do not know. Our little knowledge on the scope of ISIS puts us at more of a risk to suffer further consequences from this group. As of now, Obama is sending advisors over to assess the Iraq situation, instead of putting boots on the ground. But, this raises skepticism in global politics. One article points out, "This [the actions of Obama] not only risks the ambassadors' lives, but can be used as another example of America acting as the "world"s police," putting itself into global affairs." The other plan is to enforce military action into the region. The US"s plan to use air strikes and drones against ISIS will prove to be harmful to innocent civilians, which would only add to the anti-US sentiment in the region, as I said in the first round. So yes, ISIS is a threat, which you pointed out in Round 1. But that does not mean we should rush in and get involved so quickly. As for your question, "How many Americans will it take for the U.S. to get involved with ISIS?" I find it amusing that you ask such a rhetorical question because the answer is: very enormous, if conducted in the way that you are implying. You are acknowledging that becoming involved with ISIS will involve the lives of many U.S. citizens for a cause that is still too young to quite take action on yet.
If US should get involved with Isis

First of all, last Sunday, the FBI issued the strongest warning to date about possible attacks by the ISIS terrorist group against the U.S. military inside the homeland. If that's not a sign, then what is? . I do agree with my opponent on that it will be expensive, but if we are not to act now, the price of freedom form ISIS would be high. ISIS has, of course, killed two American citizens in a very public way. But with the very notable exception of Mehdi Nemmouche, the French citizen who returned from fighting in Syria to attack a Jewish museum in Brussels last May, the much-discussed threat of ISIS"s international fighters returning to their home countries to carry out attacks has been theoretical. How many Americans will it take for the U.S to get involved with ISIS?
If US should get involved with Isis

Although it appears beneficial for the U.S. to become involved with ISIS, it is not. In a country that is already in an accumulation of debt, the funds needed to aid ISIS would further that debt and the question is- WHY? Why would the U.S. need to spend money for an effort that will take too long and will only repeat itself in the future? By recklessly becoming involved in this decision, the nation will be threatened from trade and tourism sanctions being tied off. The results from such an involvement will be devastating. If we attempt to solve ISIS as U.S. has done in the past in Iraq, for example, we will have a d"ja vu of the country suffering economically and financially. Therefore, the U.S. should not get involved with ISIS in order to first tackle the problems that are already at home and further prevent the disruption between relations in Syria (which are already very tense).
Veganism

I happen to be one of the people that has had my doctor specifically tell me not to go vegan or vegetarian due to medical reasons, but I do not eat dairy or eggs and only free range chicken because I do recognize that there is something wrong with the abuse animals go through in the meat packing industry. All of your generalizations about meat eaters do not apply to me or many of the people I know that eat meat, dairy, and eggs. Again it may be an option for you to be vegan, but in this debate you were making statements that included the entire population of the world. Veganism is only an option for rich (on a global scale) people in rich countries. Even in rich countries you find people that can only afford to eat what they grow and raise, and cannot afford to buy substitute everything at higher prices. Mock meat is just as expensive as regular meat, if not more. You even stated that regular meat was cheaper and the fake dairy was more expensive. Also, some people don't have the money to pay more to end animal abuse. Veganism is a method of survival just like meat eating is. There are other ways to live compassionately in this world without being vegan and people that choose those other ways to live are not necessarily evil and selfish, that also does not mean that vegans cannot be evil, selfish and in-compassionate. Showing love to all things is something that human beings should strive for, but love means different things to different people. Concerning meat eaters; they love meat and animals, and they eat what they love. For you that love is expressed through not eating the animal. It is expressed in different ways but it does not mean that either way is wrong or that either side should be condemned for their choices. Thank you for your time.
Veganism

I meant that the abuse that animals go through is not relevant to your argument because your opinion is still the same whether or not the animals being eaten are being abused. Yes animals are abused in factory meat processing, but as I stated before, I am not disputing that. Maybe meat eaters do not love the animals that they eat, that does not mean that they hate all animals (you have still not defined what animals are being talked about. I will continue to assume that you mean animals that humans typically eat). I eat chicken and I love bears (the two are not mutually exclusive). If eating meat is truly evil, as you say, there should be no exceptions. You said that the "methods" differed, again everyone is eating to keep themselves alive. It, again, should not matter where the eating is being done. I have observed that in general only rich people in rich countries have the time and money to be vegan. There are people who do not have neither the time or the money to be vegan, even in rich countries. All of the dairy, meat, and egg substitutes you mentioned earlier, are more expensive than the actual thing. Nuts are also very expensive. What do you suggest to people that cannot afford those things? As to your answer about my question concerning vitamin deficiencies. Are you suggesting that people take pills instead of eating what they need to to stay healthy? Where do you think the Vitamin D3 (common vitamin deficiency) that goes into those pills comes from? Veganism is not the only option in this world and people should not be condemned because they choose a different option. The raising of live stock does not even make it onto the top ten list for the industries that pollute the most, if you are going to state something like that it needs to be true. http://www.whatagreenlife.com..., I would also like to see some proof of you statement of "More crops are used to feed livestock than to feed people". If you cannot provide proof, both of these points are irrelevant.
Veganism

Firstly, you are mistaken when you say that you can have respect for something and eat it at the same time. If you really respected it, then you would care about its well being. When you say that a cow will feed a family longer than a pile of fruits and veggies you're right. But there is a difference when we have so many different options. Unfortunately, most people choose the violent and abusive carnivore diet when they don't have to. They are doing it for taste. Killing for taste is killing for fun. Another thing, the abuse animals go through is VERY relevant. The act of painlessly killing an animal is still evil. It is not justified just because others do it in a more barbaric way. The lesser of two evils is still evil. The simple act of depriving a sentient being of their life is abuse. Statistics show that over 90% of the meat in grocery store was from a factory farm. https://www.google.com... Odds are, if you eat meat you support animal abuse. How can a meat eater love an animal that was tortured for the sake of him or her enjoying the taste of the animal's salted corpse. Do you really think that hunters love deer? Would it be considered love if I shot my wife and ate her? Even if it was painless? Meat eaters have never and will never love animals! How is it love to hang a cow upside down and slice it's throat? Think about all the evil things that you admitted to being aware of that we do to animals, and tell me we love them. I dare you. If meat eaters love animals, then logically Nazi's loved Jews. Fun Fact: Heinrich Himmler, the man responsible for organizing the holocaust was first a chicken farmer. Figures. Remember, I have said that eating meat to save yourself from starvation is okay. Since we generally agree on Mongolia, lets set that aside. There is a difference in the "methods." One is harmful and the other is not. The only justification for using the harmful method is to save your own life. No one in America, Canada or Europe should be eating the flesh of once living things. Veganism should be the norm. To those with a Soy allergy I would say to enjoy the delicious diet of fruits and vegetables while getting protein from rice, beans, nuts and supplements. The meat and dairy industry is also notorious for environmental destruction. They pollute more air and more water than any other industry. Forests are being cut down to raise soon-to-be slaughtered cows. It takes 20X the land to feed a meat eating society than to feed a vegan society. The industry as a whole is a death industry. They only kill. More crops are used to feed livestock than to feed people. If we stopped eating meat, we could end world hunger easily from the crops we could now feed starving children. But according to meat eaters, bacon is more important. Why would any sane person do business with such a destructive industry?
Veganism

How do you know that if people were raised vegan that they would have respect for all sentient beings? Unless there is some kind of evidence you can present that will prove that correlation, I will regard it as irrelevant. People can respect something and still eat it. The Plains Indian tribes (not all Indians have the same animistic beliefs) respect the spirit of the buffalo, and still eat buffalo. The difference you are trying to explain between our ancestors and humans living modern times still applies in modern times. Killing a cow will still feed one family for much longer that a pile of vegetables and berries, just like it did in ancient times, even though it was bison being killed not the modern cow. Again, when the killing takes place is not relevant to the purpose of or the act of the killing, it is the same. I have never disputed the abuse that animals experience in the meat processing industry, it a good reason for not eating factory processed meat. But even if the livestock never went through that process, you still say that eating meat is wrong. The abuse the animals experience is apparently not relevant if your opinion of meat eaters is still the same even if the animals being eaten did not experience that abuse. I know exactly what animals go through in the meat packing process, that is why I , again, have never disputed the abuse part of your argument. What I have been disputing is the idea that veganism is the only way to live compassionately on this planet, that meat eaters do not love animals, and that all meat eaters are selfish and evil. One can still live compassionately and still eat meat. I will concede that in this day and age and specifically in America, Canada and Europe it is easier to be vegan, this is because we live in rich countries that have the arable land and the economic power to never have food shortages. It also helps that there is a Whole Foods, Alfalfa's, or Sprouts on every corner. We're are also lucky to have access to grocery stores, a luxury that most people in the world do not have. It is because we live in rich countries that veganism is even an option. Your opinion on eating meat and dairy would most likely be very different if you were living in a country where the options were to eat meat and dairy or starve, like in Mongolia. Veganism is a method just like eating meat is a method, that does not mean that either method is wrong or that the people in either set are evil, selfish, or in-compassionate. What do you say to people that have vitamin deficiencies or allergies and because of that they cannot reach their dietary needs through plants alone? Like a soy allergy, this would eliminate almost all mock meat and vegan dairy. Daiya is one of the only soy free (and gluten-free, and dairy free) fake dairy products, and I know from personal experience that it is suspiciously plasticy tasting. Also to your statement of "taught to love the puppy and to eat the cow", in some parts of the world, specifically in China, they eat the puppy and the cow. http://tinyurl.com...
Veganism

Please explain what you mean by you explanation of "all of the hatred in the world comes from speciesism". This is even vaguer than the original statement. I interpret this statement as; Every single type of hatred in this world originates from humans thinking that they are superior to other animals on this planet", which by itself has no obvious relation to the topic of veganism. I am asking you to explain the relationship this statement has to your argument. You stated "Meat eaters have no consideration for ANY animals besides their pets." And earlier than this you stated " Meat, dairy and egg eaters don't care about animals". So is it all animals, or animals other than pets? Because all animals includes the category of pets (a "pet" can be considered any type of animal). What type of animals do people that eat meat not care about? Our early ancestors did have a choice, they could have eaten plants like many other animals did. But they ate meat as well as plants, just like what most humans do in modern times. What is the huge difference between eating meat to survive in modern times vs. eating meat to survive in ancient times? If eating to meat to survive is the same in both time periods, then there should not be any exceptions based on when the meat eating took place. In your case, all meat eaters should be equally as "Evil, selfish, and in-compassionate", because that is what you stated as all meat eaters being (ALL being the essential word). Based on your earlier statements I got the impression that the meat eaters in the "evil, selfish, and in-compassionate" grouping are people that participate in the act of meat eating without acknowledging that the animals being eaten are real animals. But what if a person were to only ate meat that was raised on a farm where the animals had access to big open fields, barns, and green grass. And when it came time to be slaughtered they took one bullet to the head and that was the end of it. Would this person still be evil and selfish? Would they still be leading an in-compassionate life style?