BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
What came first, the chicken or the egg

I am thoroughly enjoying this debate even though this is my first debate on this website! I am also lucky to have chosen someone with more experience than I. As he pointed out in each argument, I have missed certain key points in my first argument, but that is because I did not know what to put at first. My opponent has decided to plow his way through this debate with straight logic and that is admirable, but what if I did the same? That is what this topic has been about for the past hundred years. There was and never will be a clear winner for this argument, but I suppose I should focus on the task at hand. First, You say that I said your argument about the chicken coming before the egg ii true because c comes before e in the dictionary. I set no restrictions in the beginning because I wanted an all out logical debate with no restrictions whatsoever. I never said your argument was not true nor did I deny that it could actually be good evidence. You on the other are indirectly saying that my statement the dinosaur came before the world because it starts with a d is invalid. By doing this you cancel your own "dictionary" argument yourself. Second, You did not have to mention cavemen in order for me talk about them. That is just saying that I did not mention anything about ovaries so I don't where you got the idea from. I in fact do know that you got it from biology and the Internet as I have gotten cavemen from history. Cavemen and dinosaurs were said to be in the same era and thinking about chickens for a second, I would find it hard to believe that chickens which are about a foot tall could live around dinosaurs who are about a 1,000 feet tall. They would get stepped on and killed as will all other animal life. Third, A theory can be proven and questioning the theory of evolution is saying that research about certain is a lie. Scientists have researched specific areas and found that new species evolve over time to adapt to their environment. By your argument, I am assuming you question the theory of evolution so that means you believe the dinosaurs just died and a new era of animals was instantly created. Then that era died at the same time and a new era of animals as created immediately and I find this hard to believe. I am not merely using an entire theory from the theory of evolution, but I am incorporating facts in as well. Sources for this argument are perfectly acceptable as would all debates, but this is a debate that hasn't proven yet even with scientists and researchers. Sources are just using others perceptions and I could do just the same but I prefer not too. Conclusion, This is very interesting and I can't wait to see the outcome of this debate. I apologize for writing my debate this late which is close to the deadline, but I was caught up the past two days.
Why America has the best healthcare system in the world.

The US healthcare system is worse than in other countries and I will demonstrate this. This is a result of outrageous drug prices many drug companies impose to maximize profits, lack of competition and price transparency and waste by hospitals, lack of preventative care leading to worse problems, massive US healthcare bureaucracy and paperwork, and bad dieting. We have between two and three times the costs of other developed countries and spend 17% of our GDP or $9,000 per person on healthcare, even though they smoke more, and have more seniors. Our costs have almost doubled since 1980 whiles their only went up modestly. This is despite our high uninsurance rate, and even our government costs are higher and only some Americans are covered by the government. We have higher costs for the same drugs and medical procedures (e.g. MRIs and Bypass Surgery), and are about double the cost. We have fewer preventative care visits, fewer doctors and medical resources per person. We are less healthy, more of our babies die, we live shorter lives, and have to take more drugs. We are sicker and are behind every developed country in overall health and are not much better than the global average. Our healthcare system is rated behind every developed country and many developing countries even though we spend so much. In the next round I will come up with more statistics to back up my claims and for now you can find them in the links below. http://www.commonwealthfund.org... http://www.usnews.com... http://thepatientfactor.com...
The USFG should reinstate the Glass- Steagall Act.

**Unique Topics Tournament** Pro will argue that the GSA should be reinstated, CON that it should not. Rules: No forfeits No kritiks/ semantics All sources within body of debateShared BoP * Voting is select winner, RFD required with Moderation Structure R1: Acceptance 2. Individual Arguments 3. Rebuttals 4. Defense/Rebuttals 5. Summaries/ConclusionsThe Glass Steagall Act Definition: Is a law that prevented banks from using depositors' funds for risky investments, such as the stock market. It was also known as the Banking Act of 1933 (48 Stat. 162). It gave power to the Federal Reserve to regulate commercial banks. It also prohibited bank sales of securities. It created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).Glass-Steagall separated investment banking from commercial banking. Investment banks organize the initial sales of stocks, called an Initial Public Offering. They facilitate mergers and acquisitions. Many of them operated their own hedge funds. Commercial banks take deposits, manage checking accounts and make loans.
The Goodness of Death

Immortality is not bad it's good. Pleasures are not exhaustive, they are repeatable at some point in which they are fun again. You would never be bored because there will always be an activity that isn't boring or something new to do. Especially in an ever changing world, with technology constantly advancing, there will always be something new to peak your interest. As far as pain, the experience of pain is non unique, whether immortal or mortal pain will be experienced, and you will handle it the same way. You will also have a superior amount of knowledge as compared to the average mortal. You will be able to comprehend problems that no one else will have the time to study.
The Goodness of Death

What you do not know, will not hurt you. Nagel claims that death is a misfortune . The problems with thinking that is that someone may need to understand ones mind in order to fully comprehend the deprivation for death to be bad. It may not be possible for someone who no longer exists to suffer misfortune. It does not make sense for death to be bad. "...but only the value of the person who is its' subject." Nagel feels that in order to understand ones death, one must understand what the person is like in general. That individual would need to determine what that person has to lose when they die, and that there is a fate worse than death. Think about having to live forever. One would lose touch with themselves and be unable to connect with anyone around them. They would suffer lose on a frequent basis, they would suffer the pain of the monotonous acts of seeing their loved ones die over and over again. "Her ending of life has come to a state of boredom, indifference, and coldness. Everything is joyless" "in the end it is the same,"...singing in silence." What this translates to, is that immortality may be just as unknown and full of sameness as death. If there is suffering, then there is never going to be a end to the suffering through death.
The Goodness of Death

Thinking of death as a form of sleep is just a lie to trick the mind. You are in fact no sleeping at all. It is the ultimate end you are never waking up back to life. As Nagel states, " It is being alive, doing certain things., having certain experiences, that we consider good. But if death is an evil, it is the loss of life, rather than the state of being dead, or nonexistent, or unconscious, that is objectionable." He emphasis that death is the loss of life, that we do not fear death for the sake of dyeing but rather because we can no longer experience the pleasures and benefits that life has to offer. Humans in their selfish nature do not want to give up the gluttonous self indulgence that comes with life. That even in the process of dying we hold on to life because we do not want to leave our loved ones and all that we have and the thought of being without it scares us because it is something we have never experienced. Even at birth we thrive for possibility. Death is objectionable, it is a loss, and it does deprive us.
The Goodness of Death

People fear death because they fear the unknown, then again death isn't the only unknown in life. Everyday life is full of uncertainties, some more severe then others. If we treat death as any other unknown, then we can't base it's measure to any other unknown, since one can't measure the level of an unknown. "...You may still be sure that there is nothing to fear in death, that those that no longer exist can not become miserable, and that it makes not one spec of difference wether or not they have ever been born once their mortal life has been snatched away be the deathless death." According to Titus Lucretius Carus, it doesn't matter what happens when we die, since time is nothing, there is nothing to estimate or measure. It's also stating that death is nothing, since as time is nothing, death too is also nothing. Death should be considered a much less concerned to us then sleep. "For at death a greater disturbance end dispersion of matter takes place, no one wakes and rises once over taken by life's cold stoppage.". If we perceive sleep as a relaxation, then we should reefer to death as a greater relaxation, since it is thought to be the ultimate form of tranquility. There is no waking up back to the cold reality of life for the mind, it's as if you can dream forever.
The Goodness of Death

If you are not fearing death, then you can live recklessly without consequence or fear. You're life then has no ambition or motivation, you don't have a feel to do anything since you know that there will be no severe consequence. Thus it would feel as if you have as much motivation in death as you would in life. The fear of death is a natural occurrence, you can not have one without the other. After all having fear is a good thing, it helps us stay out of danger, Epicurus feels that "For it is better for a good decision not to turn out right in action then for a better decision to turn out right because of chance". One should be in charge of their destiny, one should make the best of the life they are given, due to the unlikely nature of their birth. Being that fear is an action attached to being in charge of your destiny fearing death is a phenomena that his helpful to living.The fear of death helps you realize the reality of the limitations of your life. If you feel that death is good, then why are most individuals fearing death? People who say that they are not afraid of death, even in the face of it, are still afraid of it since they don't know what it will be like.
The Goodness of Death

Death is not bad. There is proof in this Epicurus arguments to Menoecues. "So death, the most frightening of bad things, is nothing to us; since when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist." What he means in this quote is that, there are many things in life that affect us in a negative way. Some of these things include, disease, poverty, war, as well as others. The common relation that all of aspects have, is that not only will they eventually psychically affect us. But we can also anticipate what they will be like. With death, once it occurs, the individual who has died will not be able to feel anything anymore, and thus will not be able to know what death feels like. "For there is nothing fearful in life for one who has grasped that there is nothing fearful in the absence of life." What is said here is that by expecting that you are going to die and not fearing it (as it should bot be), that nothing else in life can be feared hence you will lead a more happy and satisfying life.
Christians ought to accept vegans as world moves forwards and even promote the belief

My opponents final round was more of the same "difficult to decipher" anecdotal argumentation. Concerning the burden, no evidence was cited. No sources where provided. No real resolution was established. Throughout this debate I have been forced to speak for my opponent. I asked my opponent to take his time, to research his rebuttals and to attempt clarity. Instead, he posted a rebuttal within 30 minutes of my last round. My opponent insisted that eggs and milk result in sexual deviancy. He believes the Christians have a moral obligation to adopt vegan dietary laws in order to be more moral. Yet my opponent rejected the writings of the Christian scripture which directly authorize the consumption of any food. In fact, the scripture seems to indicate that anyone who claims that food defiles the flesh, is himself defiled by being an unbeliever. The Christian deity is quoted as stating:" It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person. ” (Matthew 15:11)Clearly, the Christian scripture is teaching that food itself cannot corrupt (what goes into the mouth). Instead, it is the evil intentions of the heart (proceed out of the mouth), those corrupt the man. Additionally, my opponent has failed yet again to address contemporary food purity laws (FDA) and he has also failed to provide a reasonable method to explain how material food can defile an immaterial soul. The choice is very simple.
Christians ought to accept vegans as world moves forwards and even promote the belief

I still think that using this text is wrong from titus. That this scripture is nice to reel off and use but in argument over diet its wrong. The script is based in crete, an island. Do you really believe that cretan do not fish? Are islands not the place to be more lazy? Yes at some point its possible the island eat all the natural resources of meat possible yes. Also very possible it could over populate and no amount of work would fill the need for the people unless fishing. I am not claiming to be scholar of the bible and yet am sure this connection of diet and sexually promiscuity exists. Whether i am stating diet leads to bad morals well this does exist obesity exist? certain foods cause gluttony with addictive properties causing us to desire more. Not only this but they hyproicrite in using this verse. If this were to make a stand for eggs and milk you are saying the than a vegan diet does effect you moral and than foods away from your belief is infact effect the morales and rationalities of my conscience. The fact that a vegan diet is more a positive influence on myself and my rational thinking. That the diet is less or more safe for a person is not the debate nor I sorry to add that diet effect morales. Its the simple having of sexual promiscuity linked to milk and egg and that this is not intended too be the normal for all of us. Due to what ever instruments or persuades we care to take part in. Its not wrong to refuse animal produce it not wrong too. That was the purpose of this debate. I accept my typing is not much to desire. But i am sure that in revelations the soiled are mentioned. Their are the unsoiled, whether the soiled were far in the decreed of the so well educated and literal as yourself. That it acceptable and no more that a nocturnal ommision brought about be the joys of over indulgence of animal produce is perhaps me pushing the boundaries. Its very hard to see you lie on the ground you do with attacking the grounds of the safety of foods as this not debate saying all Christian ought to be vegan as animal produce is wrong for all individuals. Its clearly you have not really scripture that can used in its context to use.
Christians ought to accept vegans as world moves forwards and even promote the belief

My opponent stated he wishes to rebuke my arguments from the book of Titus. He insists that he is not defiled and unbelieving by calling animal-sourced food unclean. Instead, he argues that milking cows and raising chickens in dark silos are not a Biblical decree. I believe this is an appeal to context. My opponent believes the Biblical ordinance only applies to farming circa 30 AD. I believe my opponent is also arguing that contemporary farming methods have made an ancient "pure method" of farming impure.I may not have understood the implications of my opponent's arguments perfectly, but we clearly have a language barrier. I believe I have interpreted the basic argument. The problem is, my opponent gives no source evidence for his belief. He argues as if his word is law. As if we are to trust his understanding of faith, diet and purity.I would state with much confidence that my argument is extended since my opponent failed to muster any source evidence to counter it. Additionally, my opponent has failed to offer a rebuttal to my arguments concerning contemporary purity laws (FDA regulations). Finally, I challenged my opponent to answer a question. I asked him to provide reasoning for his premise that material food could defile an immaterial soul. (I did not burden him to prove the existance of the soul. I conceded this without challenge for the sake of discussion.)Pro has found a reasonable and fair opponent for his debate. I doubt he would have found many people who would accomodate the language barrier or the lack of experience with such patience. I urge my opponent to research his responses and offer a stronger argument.All arguments extended.
Christians ought to accept vegans as world moves forwards and even promote the belief

I rebuke that in that i am a believe. "To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled." I worry that method of milking cows and dark silo chicken farms where no quite the decreed. That things being milk of the DNA of animals is not pure yet the cow is in essence pure as the women who bread feeds her baby at birth. That the chicken is pure that she lays eggs who in a world of purity would grow to be another chicken. The diet is of that brought in revelations of being odd and smelling soiled. Its the Lord that wish well for all the planet yet we are give free will. Its only due to constant rotation of live stock that vegetable farming is cutting corners to maintain global needs. On a personal note is was not that could not afford meat or dairy its was the viable option in dieting and accepting giving.
Christians ought to accept vegans as world moves forwards and even promote the belief

My opponent stated:” Yet i stand sure that the milk and the egg of this modern world hold the darker sinister and not told tell of sin and lack purity.” Rebuttal: I believe my opponent is attempting to explain that he considers animal products impure. This premise fails on several levels: The USDA and FDA regulations are designed to quality check food to ensure that it's safe for human consumption. The majority of food-recalls have been linked to Salmonella infested vegetable matter. [1] Consider this list of FDA major-brand recalls. Four out of six recalls are related to vegetables. This makes a diet of meat, milk and eggs far more safe than the vegetable alternative. We are speaking on matters of Christian doctrine. The Biblical book of Titus clearly dictates that all things have been made pure. “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.” [2] Clearly, my opponent condemns his position by claiming that any food is impure. The Bible would call him a defiled unbeliever. I would call his position non-christian. My opponent argues that material food could corrupt a person's moral behavior. He claimed that he “believe any sexually promiscuity in my life was brought about by such evil of milk and egg.” Yet, I would counter that sexual promiscuity is the result of his biology and lack of self-discipline. I have noted that my opponent claims to have endured poverty and has thus been subjected to a vegan lifestyle. I sympathize with his position. I realize not everyone has the luxury of eating meat or dairy. However, I urge my opponent to research this matter to it's source. An egg cannot spiritually corrupt a man. We are material. The spirit is immaterial, if it exists at all. How could the material corrupt the immaterial? If anything, the immaterial should be considered free of corruption and material influence. No matter how defiled a body is, a person's spirit should be pure. The material corrupts the material.The immaterial corrupts the immaterial.The material cannot corrupt the immaterial.The immaterial cannot corrupt the material.This is purely speculative of course, since the argument assumes the existance of an immaterial spirit but I challenge my opponent to provide a reason for immaterial corruption through material food. http://www.fda.gov... [1] http://bible.cc... [2]
Christians ought to accept vegans as world moves forwards and even promote the belief

I have been trying to be a vegan many years while suffering from poverty. Its was difficult and i only ever lasted months at a time till i broken down and accepted vegetarianism or societies mainstream habits of fish and meat. Its only the past months that eating meat and fish completely left me. Yet i stand sure that the milk and the egg of this modern world hold the darker sinister and not told tell of sin and lack purity. Its alcohol and bread we share in the Lord Names not tea, biscuits or cake. Or any other recipes cooked using animal products. Anyone coming to church seeking to be vegan and changing of life ought to be not pressured, tempted into a number of treats and rebuked on not taking what is offered. This too me is really something i love to see changed and changing in the fundamentals of church. To seeing milk in church is wrong we could be using soya, i feel fine with teas and coffee also the treat no time to support the vegan industries instead of cheap packaged supermarket additives that makes us all happy. I still in my diet may even eat meat. I am no an advocate of animal rights but simple happy emotions of eating well and no comfort foods of junk. It like i wasted 6 years of my life accepting my brothers and sisters ignorance of god intentions for us all and allowed it to slip into my habits over and over again. The stigma of Vegan is too be a yoga practiser and squatting. believe any sexually promiscuity in my life was brought about by such evil of milk and egg. That any skin problems was meat related. I sure that sexual promiscuity appears all though the cloth and Christians need to wake up and stop linking vegans to sexually promiscuity thats demonising society.
Katniss Everdeen Should have married Gale, not Peeta.

First reason, Katniss knew Gale longer, and she was thinking about him all during her time in the games, feeling guilty when she showed any type of affection towards Peeta. Next, she faked her so called "love" for Peeta when in and out of the arena in The Hunger Games and Catching Fire. She even ignores him when the cameras aren't around, acting like he doesn't exist. Also, while Peeta only thinks of Katniss, she doesn't think of him all that often. When the games start, she is quick to mistrust him, and when the Quarter Quell is announced, she goes running off to try and hide herself. Nobody can deny she doesn't love Peeta, but I feel she has more feelings for Gale than Peeta.