BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Grazing cattle is destroying our environment

http://beef.unl.edu... - (relink) I would be more than happy to evidence and elaborate on my statements. http://www.news.cornell.edu... http://www.cowspiracy.com... "livestock"s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale" United Nations An organisation such as the United Nations does not make such a bold statement without credence. Cattle Production is decimating the environment in the below ways: - Toxification of the water course - Utilisation of numerous commodities - Increasing greenhouse gases - Unsustainable use of land - Desertification - Waste products - Deforestation (Rainforest) - Lack of biodiversity I will elaborate further on these in round 4. "Cows can turn desert into grasslands." (Con) I would be interested to see the evidence that supports this statement. In fact I would believe your second statement could in fact contradict the first. "The catalyst for reducing CO2 and restoring soil function and fertility, they say, is bringing back the roving, grazing animals who used to wander the world's grasslands. " theguardian.com (Con) Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with this statement; to allow the roving, grazing animals to return to the natural environment would in turn mean we have to stop extensive & intensive cattle production in said areas. Which in turn could suggest that these are the predominant causes of the soil degradation in the first place. Would you agree? I do indeed suggest that certain methods of cattle production are more eco-friendly than their counterparts. I propose that sustainable production can be achieved through pastoral production in oppose to industrial. www.gracelinks.org/blog/4712/the-water-footprint-of-beef-industrial-vs-pasture-raised www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/is-the-livestock-industry-destroying-the-planet- www.science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
Grazing cattle is destroying our environment

First link of yours didn't work. "I would end this by asking is it sustainable or moral that we grow more grain and sanitise more water for cattle than we do for ourselves. (humans)" Pro While the above may be true, would you mind proving an outside link? "The modern methods for producing cattle are swiftly destroying our natural environment." Pro You imply that one method of cattle raising is much more environmentally friendly than another. There are a multitude of indisputable facts evidencing this point. Which I will elaborate on further." Pro Do you care to elaborate now? Outside sources will increase the validity.
Grazing cattle is destroying our environment

Whist I acknowledge all of the points you have made. In particularly the quote from wbur.org, let us not confuse the issue. I do not support veganism for the population, I believe meat is an important part of our diet, as it has been for as long as we have known. The environmental destruction I refer to is not just consolidated to species destruction, of course as you correctly surmised this is an important aspect however in this debate I seek to raise attention to deforestation, water contamination, over production, contamination and the imbalance in nature that extensive cattle rearing has on today's environment. Whilst it would be an amazing ideal for a cow to thrive in the desert and in turn create lush grassland from arid dry lands, the statistics do not support this ideal, as it stands the average cow in hot weather will consumer nearly 2 gallons of water per 100 pounds of body weight. A lactating cow requires nearly double this. If we consider this statistic, how is it sustainable for cows to turn arid desert into lush grassland when the main commodity they require other than grass is water. A commodity the desert lacks. Whilst I acknowledge some cows may survive in the desert, these animals would not meet the current high global demand for beef. The cattle in agribusiness today is a commodity and a high growth rate is required. To meet this requirement we must provide the cattle with excessive amounts of water and grain. A 'free range' desert cow would meet the requirements of agribusiness no more than tofu would satisfy the greatest carnivore. I propose that we continue eating meat, but we greatly reduce our consumption to say meat every other day in oppose to the meat 3 times a day we currently consume. I would end this by asking is it sustainable or moral that we grow more grain and sanitise more water for cattle than we do for ourselves. (humans) And at what cost to our resources? www.Beef.uni.edu/amountwatercowsdrink www.foodispower.org
Grazing cattle is destroying our environment

"According to this model then, fewer animals (1.35 billion) would die than in the vegan model (1.8 billion).A533; As a result, if we apply the LHP as Regan did for his vegan conclusion, it would seem that humans are morally obligated to consume a diet of vegetables and ruminant animal products." S.L. Davis1 First eating ruminant animal products reduces field animal deaths. Why think of just cows? Aren't mice cute too? Save the field mice! "Imagine a cow that can tolerate the heat and eats relatively little grass " in other words, a cow that can thrive in the desert." wbur.org Some cows can live in the desert. Cows can turn desert into grasslands. "The catalyst for reducing CO2 and restoring soil function and fertility, they say, is bringing back the roving, grazing animals who used to wander the world's grasslands. " theguardian.com I conclude that cattle ranching is good for the environment. https://www.morehouse.edu... http://hereandnow.wbur.org... http://www.theguardian.com...
Grazing cattle is destroying our environment

I propose that in the modern world we live in. The modern methods for producing cattle are swiftly destroying our natural environment. There are a multitude of indisputable facts evidencing this point. Which I will elaborate on further. At no time in human kinds history has the earth faced a more dangerous threat than that posed by agribusiness and in particular the production of cattle. I would start my argument in support of this statement with one simple word. SUSTAINABILITY What does this word mean, and how does it apply to this situation? When we refer to something being sustainable we imply that the activity or process it relates to is able to support itself with minimal input and with a minimal impact on the environment and minimal impact on future generations due to what is being produced for us today. I would put to you that producing cattle in the manner we do now is neither sustainable nor moral. We are pillaging our natural resources in order to provide an oversold and overrated product that requires extensive resources to produce. By overrated I mean the end product (protein) for which we need to survive can be sourced in a much more ecologically friendly way.
Grazing cattle is destroying our environment

I commend your analysis however I note you have not answered my question. "Which in turn could suggest that these are the predominant causes of the soil degradation in the first place. Would you agree?" PRO GRAZING: to eat grass that is growing in a field - http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com... Whilst I admonished that one form of cattle production is more eco friendly than its counterparts, the underlying issue still remains. and I stand by the title of this debate as the issue is the same, but on a smaller scale than AFO/CAFO's. "It looks like our rule-of-thumb held up pretty good, 11 cows on 20 acres, is 1.8 acres per cow." Unfortunately, grass does not grow in equal amounts the entire year." http://www.nrcs.usda.gov... "By 2039, there may be only 0.59 acres of arable land per person, world-wide (i.e...... 7.68 billion acres / 13 billion people). However, arable land is being lost at the alarming rate of over 38,610 sq. miles." one-simple-idea.com/Environment1.htm I would conclude with the statement that if each cow requires approximately 2 acres of pastoral land to GRAZE on in ideal conditions which of course do not happen too often (consider drought), then this land use if we are to continue grazing must supersede all other requirements. I.e. Conservation, Development, etc. In turn this grazing is going to and is decimating our environment. I don't know how you feel but I would rather give that 2 acres to back to nature, better yet allow it to remain in nature or give it to a needing family who could sustain themselves via subsistence,organic arable farming. Power be to the people in oppose to the cattle. "We both know that cattle production is extremely destructive to the environment. Why not ban cattle altogether?"CON It would seem with your statement above, that you agree with my point. In supporting the current methods of cattle grazing we allow the destruction of the environment
People should not have a problem with people who are homophobic.

Judging from the title I will set the BOP, as my opponent has failed to do this. --Pro must prove that people should not have a problem with homophobes----I must prove that people should have a problem with homophobes--__I will begin with my arguments. __A1. Homophobes have a hatred for a sizable portion of the american population. According to Source 1, 10-20% (at least) of the US population is homosexual (gay or lesbian. ) Now, this is not even counting closeted homosexuals! This is around 1/10 to 1/5 of the US population that would be under fire from homophobes. Clearly this would be a major cultural dispute. I can't think of any more so I will wait for more arguments and rebuttals.
Should people be able to homeschool

Firstly, I"d like to make a side-note that I"m only playing Devil"s Advocate here. This is not my actual stance on homeschooling. In this debate I will argue 3 points in my attempt to prove why people should not homeschool their children. 1. Homeschooling affects the social development of the student. 2. Homeschooling affects the potential academic development of the student. 3. Homeschooling affects a student"s view of free will. The first point revolves around the idea that we, as humans, learn to adapt to society through the use of socialization. One of the key factors of socialization is our schooling. At school, we are offered a place to make long-lasting friendships with people who might potentially grow up with us. With homeschooling, the lack of fellow students prohibits a young child from fully discovering their social ability, which in turn could affect their identity discovery. Using my personal experience at a very small Christian school (roughly 7 people in my class), I can vouch for the delayed social development. In a school with very few people, I not only found it hard to truly connect with any of my fellow students, I also found it difficult in discovering who I was. It wasn"t until the school expanded, creating much larger classrooms, that I realized who I was and found my sort of people. I can only imagine that a homeschooled student has a much harder time at socialization. The second point relies on the parents and their ability to properly homeschool their students. While accreditation does play a factor into the competence of the parents ability to teach students, a school cannot possibly predict a parents motives for homeschooling their children. If, as you"ve mentioned, the reasons are religious, then the parent may very-well deny a child his/her opportunity to learn about evolution or history, which will affect the student"s college years. Other than that, a student should have the opportunity to study with other students. The final point revolves around the idea that the student might feel caged or imprisoned in their own house. School, despite being 3 parts work and 1 part fun, is a type of getaway for a young child, and if a parent takes away this freedom, the child might begin to question their views of free will. Homeschool Companion mentions a few more disadvantages on their site. One of them deals with the wellbeing of the parent stating, "Homeschooling is a full time job, and you have to consider whether you have the time and resources to do it. It may not be financially viable to not be working in order to homeschool your child. When you factor in the cost of homeschool materials and resources it can be a very expensive undertaking." To conclude my opening arguments, I find that homeschooling, while most certainly not malicious, brings forth questions we must ask regarding the students well-being. Source: http://www.homeschool-companion.com...
Protectionism will be detrimental to the U.S economy.

Please provide a source for the $1.8 trillion figure. Thanks in advance. Moving on, preventing imports of foreign goods is a bad thing. It will not do the things that you've listed. Here's why. Reason #1: Retaliation You are implying that countries will be idle when the U.S prevents imports of foreign cars. Other countries would prevent imports of U.S cars from coming into their country. This causes the decline of both foreign markets and the United States market. Reason #2: Backfiring You are also implying that the trade deficit will be reduced when we prevent imports or we place tariffs. Of course reducing the trade deficit is beneficial to the U.S economy. However, protectionism will not do that. That is because placing a tariff will increase the demand for a U.S good in the United States relative to other countries. That would mean that the demand for American currency will increase. This would appreciate the value of the dollar. Appreciating the value of the dollar leads to a decrease of exports since foreigners would purchase less of U.S exports that have become more expensive. [4] [4] https://www.coursehero.com...
Protectionism will be detrimental to the U.S economy.

You did not explain to me how eliminating the trade deficit, which increase the output of the American worker by $1.8T would be a bad thing? Let us say we prevented imports of foreign cars, forcing them out of the American market, causing Americans to buy more American-made cars, or forcing them to open factories here, causing more American jobs. Is this a bad thing? If so, why?
Protectionism will be detrimental to the U.S economy.

First of all, you are implying that tariffs will eliminate the trade deficit. That is wrong, and I will explain that later in Round 3 if you use that argument. Reason #1: Tariffs will hurt consumers. Since a tariff is a tax on imports [1], it will hurt consumers by raising the prices of goods they purchase. For example, let's say you want to buy an imported car that costs $10,000. If a 50 percent tariff is placed on all imported cars, then the car you want to buy will now cost $15,000. Due to increased prices, consumer spending will decrease. Since consumer spending is a component of gross domestic product [2], tariffs will hurt the U.S economy by increasing prices. Reason #2: Tariffs will hurt U.S exporters. If the U.S government places a tariff, then whom would other governments around the world target in retaliation? They would target U.S exporters by increasing their tariffs on U.S goods. U.S exporters would see their profits decrease as their goods are now more expensive in foreign markets. Exporters would have to offset the losses by increasing prices or cutting jobs. Reason #3: Tariffs will be exploited by bureaucrats and special interests. In 2016, lobbying groups spent over $1.6 billion on the federal government [3]. It is very clear what would happen if tariff laws were placed. The largest corporations and exporters would lobby lawmakers to create loopholes that favor them. Meanwhile, smaller companies and exporters would be hurt by tariffs. This increased corruption will hurt the United States economy. If you want to see reduced corruption, then do not support tariffs. Sources: [1] http://www.investopedia.com... [2] https://www.thebalance.com... [3] https://www.opensecrets.org...
All people have the right to safely own an Atomic Bomb

The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States recognizes the right of civilians to bear the arms of a standard infantryman. 'Arms' refers to "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." (1)Nuclear weapons do not fit this category; thus, since there is no other provision in the Constitution claiming (explicitly or implicitly) that safe ownership of an atomic bomb is a right, this right does not exist.Safe, civilian ownership of an atomic bomb does not exist. Since it does not exist, it can't be a right. Use of atomic bombs cannot discriminate between innocent people and criminals; neither can the radiation produced by them, which is long-lasting, widespread, and renders an immense area unhospitable.(1) http://constitution.org...
All people have the right to safely own an Atomic Bomb

"Going back to the example of a man washed up on an island [...]"Defending a supposed right of a theoretical man in a very unlikely scenario that is not only hypothetical, but never occurred in reality, does not help your case. "As I already pointed out, nuclear energy can be safely contained, and is safely contained in the private sector on a regular basis."That analogy only applies to nuclear reactors, which are designed to produce productive energy. Your argument is about atomic bombs, which are weapons of mass destruction designed to produce indiscriminate, widespread, and long lasting death and destruction."Prove that an atomic bomb cannot under any circumstances be contained in such a way that it doesn't pose any risk to surrounding property. You keep saying it, but I've provided ample evidence that suggests that it can absolutely be done."I don't have to prove it, since the burden of proof is on you to prove that safe, civilian ownership of atomic bombs even exists. You have not provided 'ample evidence' that suggests it can be done for reasons that I listed just above. In fact, you've provided evidence showing it can't be done; according to you, the government can't safely own atomic weapons: "the US government to date as done $1,768,093,374 worth of damages due to improper nuclear bomb testing and uranium handling." If a team of government-certified, experienced scientists can't safely manage nuclear bombs, why would some random civilian be able to? My opponent's argument suggests that nobody can safely own atomic bombs, much less an ordinary citizen."So you're saying that people only have freedoms that are economically productive?"No, I'm not."If you really wanted to follow this to its logical conclusion it would be philosophical suicide."It's a good thing I'm not going to follow your strawman to its logical conclusion, then."The same considerations for any weapon, whether it is a gun being pointed at you, or a nuclear bomb is being put next to your property."I trust the voters realize that the considerations for guns and nuclear warheads are NOT the same!So in conclusion, my opponent has not been able to satisfy his burden of proof. I hope you vote Con. Thank you.
All people have the right to safely own an Atomic Bomb

"A right is an odd fluffy term that doesn't amount to much when examined with scrutiny."It only seems so because the word 'right' has been so thoroughly abused and perverted. According to the Declaration of Independence, rights come from God. The word has lost some of it's significance because many people believe that government grants rights, as opposed to merely defending them."Every person has self-evident freedoms."True, but the right to ownership of an atomic bomb is not even a freedom, much less a self-evident one."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."OR to the people, not AND to the people. This doesn't necessarily recognize a civilian right to atomic bomb ownership."the Constitution is not binding to citizens, only to those who swear to uphold it."But the Constitution recognizes the right to self-defense, as implied by the 2nd Amendment. Civilian ownership of an atomic bomb infringes on the rights of others' self-defense, because atomic bombs cannot be defended against in a practical manner."Even if it was binding to citizens, they have the freedom declared under the declaration of Independence to withdraw their consent and govern themselves as they see fit."That's right, but the Declaration of Independence only recognizes rights, it doesn't grant them. A right for civilian ownership of atomic bombs just doesn't exist, as opposed to the right of a government to own atomic bombs at the consent of its people. Ownership of an atomic bomb cannot be an individual right because it creates a "risk beyond a reasonable doubt to [your] neighbors (sic) property.""there are 65 examples in the United States alone [of safe release of atomic energy.]"Yes, from nuclear reactors, which are, by design, economically productive. This example does not apply to atomic bombs, which are designed solely for indiscriminate death and destruction that is not only wide-spread, but long-lasting. "the US government to date [h]as done $1,768,093,374 worth of damages due to improper nuclear bomb testing and uranium handling."That's merely an argument against improper testing and handling."All people have the freedom to safely own nuclear weapons and it is immoral for anyone to infringe upon that freedom."All people encompasses delusional psychotic people. Because of this simple fact, your premise is wrong.
The Necessary and Proper Clause of the US Constitution is Unnecessary

I accept my opponents definition and source, providing the fact that in this debate wiki and other such associated links are mutually valid, but not exclusive hereto. It is recognized that Pro will argue in favor of the aforementioned resolution, and Con, myself, will argue in negation, that such Clause is a necessary function for this governmental entity. In light of the resolution, the definition of this resolution is exclusive to this source; other such definitions, sources, links, and other forms of evidence shall NOT change the meaning, semantical or otherwise, to the boundaries of this resolution. My opponent assumes the burdon of proof, seeing as he is in favor of changing the status quo. As defined by (. http://debatepedia.idebate.org...) in Science and Other uses this most directly applies, to quote: "'burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it".
The Necessary and Proper Clause of the US Constitution is Unnecessary

The Necessary and Proper Clause - The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[1] Pro argues that this clause is unnecessary to have in the US Constitution.Con argues that it is necessary.First Round Acceptance[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;