BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Factory farming is cruel

Who are you to decide which animal's life's hold more value than others? What difference is there between a cow and a domestic cat? Both have eyes to see, nose to smell, ears to hear and a brain to think, so why do humans assume they don't have the ability to feel fear, pain, loss? Have you been there when a baby calf is taken away from it's mother, and her plea... Her cry for her baby? Have you witnessed the place they are raised and live in, and accepted the false advertisement for 'farmed fresh' products with a happy cow, green hills and farmer on the front? I understand it's hard to accept a different way of living than what we've been taught to believe, but it's not working anymore. We are running out of resources, and factory farming is only producing half of the resources it takes in. Stop being a victim to these companies that are taking advantage of good people... It's so hard to watch. And I'm sure the animals will thank you too. It is absolutely not necessary there are so many other ways we can deal with this as the human race. Not only is it that but factory farming is a waste of water, land, and crops. They are environmentally irresponsible. Animals on the farms suffer from horrible physical and mental problems. Factory farms are cruel and inhumane. I've seen for myself in many You tube videos what these animals go through, and I'm telling you, it's not pretty and that fact that it is legal to be able to treat an animal which can do all the basic things we can like that is terrible and irresponsible for the government. The world needs to wake up see what really happens to these poor innocent animals. It's more than wrong to treat these animals like this. If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be vegetarian. To me factory farming is clearly quite cruel.
Resolved: The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

I'll begin with a response to my opponent's CX in the comments. His text is in bold, while mine is not:In response to me disproving my opponent's comment that no third party has ever won electoral votes, my opponent says the following:While it is true that third parties have won electoral votes, these votes do not matter. Take, for example, the 1856 election my opponent cited. 21.6% of popular votes went to third party candidate Millard Fillmore, yet he only won 8 of 296 electoral votes -- about 2.7% [1] This is not a significant number compared to the massive 174 and 114 votes his opponents won.The 1912 election was an exception -- the voters should know that. The third party candidate was Theodore Roosevelt, who already had the backing of the GOP. He ran under his own party after being refused the nomination for the GOP, and took support with him. Essentially, for that election, the Progressive Party was the GOP. The GOP was a third party in that election, and only received 8 electoral votes, versus the 23.2% of popular votes. [2]George Washington is a poor example because the voters at the time were not informed enough to vote fairly, only on what they knew -- they were free because of him.First off, who is to say the votes do not matter? The votes were able to draw the election away from the Republican candidate and towards the Democrat, who won with 45% of the vote.[1] Second, the result of 1912 was due to a split in the GOP vote - Woodrow Wilson won the election with 41% of the vote, and the GOP/Progressive vote combined for 51% of the vote.[2] This reinforces my previous point that the electoral college can and will punish candidates who refuse to reognize third party support. As to the last, I have already disproven the notion that voters were uninformed (they were rich property-owning white folk, who had access to education) and that voting was actually important (only about 1.3% of the population voted in the 1788 election,[3] and about 0.5% of the population voted in 1792 - Washington's two elections.[4])My opponent contends that a candidates death has nothing to do with succession. Order of succession is defined as "the ascension to power by one ruler, official, or monarch after the death, resignation, or removal from office of another, usually in a clearly defined order." Is that not what we have in the United States?[3]My argument has nothing to do with officials who are in office - it has to do with the Electoral College being able to adopt to the death of a candidate who is due votes. For example - let's say Barack Obama died before the Electoral College met. The Electoral College could have adjusted accordingly. I do not have any new arguments to make, but I will be doing a CX of this round in the comments. References:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Resolved: The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

Plan:My opponent contends that: (my text has --text) the EC should be kept because it represents America's unique political system. --If a successful government survived on being unique, we would all be communists. Third parties are relevant under the EC--Third parties are not relevant, having won less than 3% of votes in both elections my opponent cited. The EC requires candidates to campaign as a whole. --The EC requires candidates to focus on swing states, as we saw in the 2012 election. The EC can be changed easily--Popular vote can be as wellMy opponent has failed to prove that his counter-plan is superior to mine, whereas I have proven that my plan is superior for the following reasons:--Better representation of minorities--The EC skews the ideas of the populus and electoral system--The EC violates the principles of equality seen in the 15th amendment--The EC allows room for corruption------------------------------------Furthermore,Today's resolution should be affirmed for the following reasons:-Voters are more informed eliminating the original purpose of the EC-The EC distorts the principles of American representation-The EC is hypocritical regarding the morals set forth in "equal protection" amendments such as the 15th.
Resolved: The Electoral College Should Be Abolished

PLEASE! If you're interested in learning:. http://en.wikipedia.org......Definitions:Electoral College: a body of electors; especially : one that elects the president and vice president of the United States Abolished: to end the observance or effect ofShould: Ought to About this debate:Time limit: 72 hoursCharacter limit: 8,000 charactersRounds: 5 split up as follows:Round 1: pro: acceptance and definitionscon: acceptance and definitionsRound 2:pro: 1AC(possible CX either in comments or email)con: 1NC(possible CX either in comments or email)Round 3:pro: 2AC(possible CX)con: 2NC(possible CX)Round 4:pro: 1ARcon: 1NRRound 5:pro: 2ARcon: 2NRDuring the fourth round, only attack arguments made in round 2. During the fifth round, only attack arguments made in round 3. No rebuttals may be done during rounds 2/3 outside of CX. BoP is on aff.
should the price of cigarettes be raised

I'm going to agree with my opponent outright that smoking is a nasty habit. Like my opponent stated, it gives you bad breath, stains your teeth and can even result in a slow, painful death from cancer. That said, I will maintain the position that the price f cigarettes should not be raised My arguments will be as follows- First; Whether some-one chooses to smoke or not is an issue of personal autonomy. Yeah, smoking is bad for you, we get that -- but it's a choice that one should make on their own. If we decide that we want to raise the price of cigarettes because they're bad for you, then what happens next? Do we raise the price of gas since it's bad for the environment (oh god no), hike up the cost of fast food to prevent diabetes? No. Because it's all an matter of personal autonomy. Second; people aren't going to stop buying cigarettes just because the price goes up. The reason people continue to smoke despite it being such a nasty habit is that they are addicted to it -- all voting for the affirmative will do is give more money to tobacco companies.
marijuana should not be considered an illicit drug.

Many people think that marijuana is an illicit drug. In my debate I would like to argue that it is not but instead it is helpful in many ways. 1. People are led to believe that marijuana is more potent then it used to be. A U.S. government statistic that may influence beliefs on this states: "Today's marijuana is more potent and more harmful than it was many years ago." Though there is no medical evidence that shows high-potency marijuana is more harmful than low-potency marijuana. Marijuana is actually one of the least toxic substances known to man. High-potency marijuana is actually preferred because less of it is consumed to obtain the desired effect, thus reducing the amount of smoke entered into the lungs. 2. Marijuana contains over 400 chemicals, thus proving that marijuana is dangerous. This is completely absurd and untrue. I say this because coffee alone contains 1,500 chemicals. Rat poison contains only 30 chemicals. Many vegetables contain cancer-causing chemicals. There is no correlation between the number of chemicals a substance contains and its toxicity. Prohibitionists often cite this misleading statistic to make marijuana appear dangerous. 3. Many people are also led to believe that Marijuana is a gateway drug. They believe that it leads to harder drugs. When in fact the U.S. government's own statistics show that over 75 percent of all Americans who use marijuana never use harder drugs. The gateway-drug theory is derived by using blatantly-flawed logic. Using such blatantly-flawed logic, alcohol should be considered the gateway drug because most cocaine and heroin addicts began their drug use with beer or wine, not marijuana. I could continue with many more valid arguments, but the fact is that I would be typing all night. So I am concluding my argument with these few topics. sources that i have used to back up my argument include http://legalizationofmarijuana.com...
marijuana should not be considered an illicit drug.

since my opponent has failed and forfeited his last argument, I will make some new topics. 1. A smart reason why marijuana should be legal is that it would save our government lots of money. In the United States, all levels of government (federal, state, and local authorities) participate in the "War on Drugs." We currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who happen to like to get high. These people get locked up in prison and the taxpayers have to foot the bill. We have to pay for food, housing, health care, attorney fees, court costs, and other expenses to lock these people up. This is extremely expensive! We could save billions of dollars every year as a nation if we stop wasting money locking people up for having marijuana. In addition, if marijuana were legal, the government would be able to collect taxes on it, and would have a lot more money to pay for effective drug education programs and other important causes. 2.The hemp plant is a valuable natural resource. Legalizing marijuana would eliminate the confusion surrounding hemp and allow us to take advantage of hemp's agricultural and industrial uses. Uses of hemp are, but not limited to, the following. multiple kinds of paper, clothing, rope, other materials related too fabrics, and everyday items such as wallets and blankets. 3. Another major reason that marijuana should be legal is because prohibition does not help the country in any way, and causes a lot of problems. There is no good evidence that prohibition decreases drug use, and there are several theories that suggest prohibition might actually increase drug use (i.e. the "forbidden fruit" effect, and easier accessibility for youth). One unintended effect of marijuana prohibition is that marijuana is very popular in American high schools. Why? Because it is available. You don't have to be 21 to buy marijuana -- marijuana dealers usually don't care how old you are as long as you have money. It is actually easier for many high school students to obtain marijuana than it is for them to obtain alcohol, because alcohol is legal and therefore regulated to keep it away from kids. If our goal is to reduce drug consumption, then we should focus on open and honest programs to educate youth, regulation to keep drugs away from kids, and treatment programs for people with drug problems. But the current prohibition scheme does not allow such reasonable approaches to marijuana; instead we are stuck with 'DARE' police officers spreading lies about drugs in schools, and policies that result in jail time rather than treatment for people with drug problems. We tried prohibition with alcohol, and that failed miserably. We should be able to learn our lesson and stop repeating the same mistake. This concludes my arguments and I look forward to my opponents arguments... that is if he doesn't forfeit again. http://www.mjlegal.org...
marijuana should not be considered an illicit drug.

I will now point out the flaws in my opponents arguments and further quarrel with the debate. in his second section, he states: " if rat poison has 30 chemicals and marijuana has over 400, that instills me with a lot of fear. " My opponent leaves out the fact that coffee contains 1,500 chemicals. Therefore one cannot say that the amount of chemicals a substance contains justifies its toxicity. It would be like saying wine is more toxic than beer. Con also states: "It has also been proven to increase the risk of cancer, due to the high amounts of cancerinogens. [7] So, the chemicals in marijuana are clearly very harmful. " But if you click on the link the con has provided, the website proclaims this: "Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens. [72][73][74] Surprisingly, an extensive study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles found that there is no significant link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer. " If you look at this website it will go into a more detailed description about the case study. In the cons first set of arguments he declares this: "Marijuana is very dangerous. It contains THC and carcinogens. Based on that alone, it should be illegalized, because it is a danger to the public. " But what I have found is that cannabis smoke is not as carcinogenic as tobacco smoke. In a review article published in Harm Reduction Journal, Dr. Melamede from the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA, writes that although cannabis smoke and tobacco smoke are chemically very similar, evidence suggests that their effects are very different and that cannabis smoke is less carcinogenic than tobacco smoke. The pharmacological effects of tobacco and cannabis smoke differ in many ways, mainly because tobacco smoke contains nicotine while cannabis smoke contains tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The cancer-promoting effects of smoke are increased by nicotine, while they are reduced by THC. In con's second argument, I find it rather confusing. The argument practically says that by most peoples standards marijuana is not considered as an illegal drug. my opponent then says if it is, it is not valued because it is illegal. everybody I know recognizes and considers marijuana to be illegal. If this is not what you meant in your argument then please explain your argument a little better. The third argument is inapt. The fact that marijuana is not physically addicting proves that there is no dependency on cannabis. Medical studies rank marijuana as less habit forming than caffeine. The legal drugs of tobacco (nicotine) and alcohol can be as addicting as heroin or cocaine, but marijuana is one of the least habit forming substances known. once more I have used the same website for my research and sources. which by the way, is not blocked on any other computers I have access to. this includes my other home computers and my friends computers.
Democracy is the Most Desirable Form of Government

PrefaceKC had asked me to debate this topic with some time ago, and has promised to debate me on homophobia subsequent to the conclusion of this debate. I think these will be two intriguing and informative debates, and I look forward to getting them underway! Full TopicOn balance, democracy is the most desirable form of government. JudgesThe voting is set to "select winner. " I have nominated 10 judges for this debate. I selected them based on my past experience with them and their voting habits. I trust each of them to leave detailed, unbiased, cogent RFDS, and to engage in a close reading of the debate. The judges I've nominated are: Phantom, Wylted, Romanii, Whiteflame, Beverlee, Bladerunner060, Raisor, Thett3, Airmax1227, and Ajab. If KC objects to any member of this panel, he should PM me, and we can amend the debate parameters appropriately. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. For the purposes of this debate, "democracy" means "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system. " It may also be some combination of both the former and latter forms (Dictionary. com).6. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CasesR3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals, Final FocusThanks. :)
humans are no longer significantly evolving

con criticizes my sources. my sources are not unreliable. and, your sources while overall are more reputable, do not specifically address the idea that we are or are not evolving. they are incidental points about other subjects, like cognifive function etc. the only studies that i can find that say anything about us evolving is on a small scale. they almost concede that they have ot focus on the smaller scale, cause we don't die out and not pass on our genes any more for the most part. http://www.pnas.org... con argues i need to define weak and give examples. defining weak in precise terms is irrelevant- the only point in saying the weak still sucessfully breed, is to say almost everyone breeds if they want to. there isn't a limit due to one's inability to adapt to nature. we as huamns adapt nature to us. weak is self apparent here cause it means those who cannot breed. adaptation is one part of evolution. it's the precuser to it, not evolution itself. if you can't adapt, you die. if you die, those who don't die evolve. adaptation isn't evolution. "Genetic evolution is slow. The Hyracotherium, the most basic form of the horse, took more than 10my to genetically transform into to Orahippus and about 55my to become the horse we know today [8 http://www.truthinscience.org.uk......]. To say that humans don't evolve any more because there are not any recent changes in our DNA as species is like taking a screenshot from a movie and argue that this proves, that there is no movement in the movie at all." evolution isn't signficant any more. there may be small variations, such as discussed when someone chooses a more intelligent partner etc, or when a retard falls off a bridge. etc. but the species isn't changing into another one, or even changing at all to any significance. we won't change any time within the forseeable future, even noting that evolution is a slow process. realtive to that, we aren't changing. we change the environment into somehting favoring us, instead of otheriwse. neanderthal may have died out. but they are not us. we are well established technologically and otherwise. if there is a change, it is far in the future, in far out scenarios, so my statement can still be maintained that we aren't evolving any more significantly, cause it implies at the relatively recent time being, and there's no proof even to an plausibly outter forecast that soemthing will cause us to evolve. con gives some examples of people dying or not breeding as much etc. these are outliers. the human race or a segment of it is still not going to change into another one, or change all that much, within any foreseeable time frame.
humans are no longer significantly evolving

con argues that when mate selection occurs, evolution occurs by definition. to some extent, this is true. as that causes certain genes to pass and change etc. but i wouldn't say that aspect is significant. we aren't going to change into a different species, or even change overall all that much, as far as i can see for the foreseeable future. again, true evolution involves animals dying out and being unable to propogate their genes. this isn't occurring with humans any more. humans even the weak ones are able to change their environment to fit them, instead of dying, and are do in fact propogate their genes. i dont see it being likely that some humans will simply refuse to breed so much, that there will be a split in the species. it's too humogonous for that. adapting to the internet and technology isn't really evolution. evolution again is where the weak die and can't propogate their genes. it's not like those who don't understand technology are dying, and only those with better cognitive functions are living etc. technology and the interet etc is just adapting to tools, not evolution. monkeys can learn new tricks with tools too, but it doesn't mean they are evolving. adapting isn't evolving. my arguments are actually very well established scientifically. it doesn't seem as authoritative when i'm the one doing the arguing, but the theories are still valid. this is just a random quick example. there's stuff all over the internet backing up my thesis. http://www.popsci.com...
humans are no longer significantly evolving

we are not longer evolving signficantly as humans. true, people in africa and other poor, many religous fanatics die, but as a whole, we are adapting the environemnt to us, instead of it forcing us to adapt. remember, evolution is where the weak die and the only those that live to copulate further their genes. changes in specific animals doesn't cause evolution... you can't cut your thumb off and get your kids thumbless. (i'm sure there's minor deviations esepecially from radioactivity that can be continued but as a whole you can't change your species from yourself) this is the evolution i was taught at school. if this is right, there's no way evolution could be occuring given that even the weak are likely to breed.
Chemotherapy is less effective than a placebo

Thanks for the debate Pro, I accept. This resolution could be more specific, so I shall specify. Chemotherapy is more effective than a placebo for the treatment of cancer. I will provide definitions from Google definitions: Chemotherapy - the treatment of disease by the use of chemical substances, especially the treatment of cancer by cytotoxic and other drugs https://www.google.com... Effective - successful in producing a desired or intended result. https://www.google.com... Placebo - a harmless pill, medicine, or procedure prescribed more for the psychological benefit to the patient than for any physiological effect. https://www.google.com... Treatment - medical care given to a patient for an illness or injury. https://www.google.com... Cancer - the disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body. https://www.google.com... I await my opponents arguments.
Whales should be the president

Your post is not a rebuttal on my case, just more random balderdash. Now why should I stop using logic? Because you wanted to win this debate? No thank you. I'm going to use logic, and the only way you can win is for you to use logic as well, which is hard to do for a resolution like this. I need only to negate the resolution, and so far, you haven't done much to fulfill your BoP.