BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should all be vegans

I never denied that humans are herbivores. That's correct. But we can handle cooked meat so there shouldn't be any problem with eating it. It all comes down to what we choose and wish to eat. We don't NEED to eat meat, but we do because we enjoy it. Bringing up the topic of lifespan isn't really necessary; people who eat candy and chips all day likely know it's unhealthy and that it will affect them negatively in the future but they do it anyways. "Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish." How so? Please give examples if you can. Overall, people should have the choice to be vegan or not rather than forced to do so. Encouraged, yes. Forced, no. You see, barely anyone except who agrees with you cares about your opinion. Unfortunately, that's how life works. So go ahead and wish all you like that people would change their diets, but a large majority of people won't care about what YOU want THEM to eat.
We should all be vegans

Yes, our bodies can handle COOKED meat. However, we are not omnivores. We sweat, we do not pant. Our teeth are flat and grinds instead of going up and down. We have special enzymes on our tongue only herbivores have. Our intestines are longer over 7 times as long as our torso. We do not have claws. Only herbivores have these traits. Not to mention that vegans have a longer lifespan than non-vegans. Animals are forced to breed while in small living spaces. They have their children taken away and slaughtered up-side-down while conscious. They are born to die for your taste buds. Also, if everyone went vegan, the environment would flourish.
We should all be vegans

I agree; it's not a debate about religion. I included both sides' (atheist and Catholic/Christian) beliefs (or lack thereof). It was a brief little history lesson to tell you WHY humans are considered superior to other animals. I didn't think it was that hard to understand but maybe the road of education isn't as smooth for you. Also, the Bible isn't a science book (obviously). What it comes down to: We should choose what we eat usually based on what we believe is right. Cannibalism isn't a popular idea because of the way society has been formed. No, but seriously, don't eat a toddler. That's weird...
We should all be vegans

I gave that reasoning because of society's views on cannibalism; why others think eating children is wrong. It's been that way since the beginning of time if you go by the Bible. Because a majority of people in the old times went by the Bible, society was formed to fit its rules. The Protestant and Catholic beliefs spread to many parts of the world, making others think the same thing as well. If you go by evolutionary standards, it's different. The theory of evolution was started by Aristotle but took huge leaps of development in 1793 by the botanist Jean Baptiste Lamarck who presented a full-blown theory of evolution. That was the start of the theory and it took time to develop and grow. Because religious influence had spread as far as America, the indoctrinated idea wasn't fully questioned with better evidence until Lamarck presented the theory. The idea that humans were higher beings was fairly popular. Laws were created based on some of the Bible's rules which is why murdering people is considered illegal and killing animals for food isn't. We have kept that ideology despite many people being atheists.
more gun regulation should exist

i dont see any graph from the UN in that link that talks about guns v homicides. my links are from harvard and oxford and an academic study. that trumps con's missing graph. i dont know what con wants when he talks about inherency. he somewhat acknowledges that i provided evidence gun control is effective. if i've done that, doesn't it follow that i can argue we should have gun control? i dont know what's not inherent about that.
more gun regulation should exist

My opponent tries to challenge my charts, but my first chart is from the UN, found here (http://www.unodc.org...). The second is from the NRA. Also if you follow my opponent's Oxford link it links you to the main page and doesn't really do anything, so my opponent's arguments don't stand until this is fixed. In the debate she listed, if you follow THAT link you can see that the Doccument she listed was from 2004 while mine is from 2013. Her's is very out dated and mine should be taken over her's concidering that mine is 9 years newer than her's.I extend all other dropped arguments across.Next, I would like to argue Inherancy. Inherancy in this debate is key, because it is the need for something to happen. My opponent only offers evidence that it works, but doesn't show that we actually need Gun Control. As Pro she needs to prove that this is needed and she cannot even come close to winning the debate until Inherancy is established on her part.
more gun regulation should exist

For this first portion of my argument I'll show that when observing other nations we can see a correlation that the more Gun Control that you see that the higher the crime rates end up becoming. First let us observe economist John Lott in The Bias against Guns where he was quoted saying, "Suppose for the sake of argument that high-crime countries are the ones that most frequently adopt the most stringent gun control laws. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that gun control indeed lowers crime, but not by enough to reduce rates to the same low levels prevailing in the majority of countries that did not adopt the laws. Looking across countries, it would then falsely appear that stricter gun control resulted in higher crime." He goes on to say that, "[t]o resolve this, one must examine how the high-crime areas that chose to adopt the controls changed over time —not only relative to their own past levels but also relative to areas that did not institute such controls." This is further backed up by his imperial evidence and studies as shown in the above chart. The nations with more Gun Control have higher crime rates. Where is the United States on this graph you may be asking yourself? It's that far outlier on the far lower right. You can see that Lott's evidence shows this correlation that the more gun control one has the higher the crime rates. (http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...) Another study done by Harvard they have found similar results in that nations with higher and stricter gun control than the US actually have a higher crime rate. Well how's this you may ask? Well it's the fact that the public is losing deterrence and a way to defend themselves and criminals who still want to commit the crime use other weapons like knives and axes. If Less guns solve the problem then let's just get rid of all of them right? Wrong! The study also finds that the small nation of Luxembourg had banned all small firearms and the crime rate skyrocketed that of 9 times Germany's. (Kates and Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide") Another key area is the Brady Law. This is something that many people champion as being the crown jewel in Gun Control. Though the fact is that it really hasn't done anything. Researches Jen Ludwig and Phyllis Cook, both of which who are strong anti-gun advocates, found that the Brady Law has had no effect on murder rates and the only category that there was a change was a slight In the United Kingdom during the early 1990's Crime including robberies dropped significantly, 50% to say the least. But in 1997, the United Kingdom banned Guns outright. This caused crimes to rise back to their pre-1992 status and averaged a 32% in the span of the law before it was repealed in 2002. (http://johnrlott.tripod.com...) To come full circle we can see that though we can do something and the public wants it does not mean that we should do it as it causes nothing but problems here for us. I'll now pass things back off to my opponent.
more gun regulation should exist

here is the debate with working links http://www.debate.org... more gun regulation should exist. background checks are the main way we should increase gun regulations. currently there are around forty percent of sales without checks. there is plenty of potential here. the following links show that the more guns a person or geographic area has, the more overall homicides occur. this indirectly shows that it's not true that people will just kill with knives or alternative weapons, or that they will just run out and get a gun illegally. background checks are just a step removed from the idea that not everyone will just find a way to kill anyway. https://www.youtube.com...... http://thinkprogress.org...... http://aje.oxfordjournals.org...... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...... here are two case studies on reducing guns: japan has an almost complete ban on guns, and has almost no deaths from guns and a low homicide rate. http://www.theatlantic.com...... australia greatly reduced the amount of guns it has, and its rate is nearly cut in half from 2 in 100000 to 1 in 100000 deaths per year. http://www.gunpolicy.org...... also common sense dictates that not all people who are denied a gun will run out and get one to commit a crime. to say otherwise is like saying we shhouldn't have crime laws, cause some crime will occur. (to all those arguments that say things like "gee gun regs must work, just like drug laws work.... yeah right") not everyone is a black hoodie who will run out and get a gun. it will have some positive effect.
more gun regulation should exist

My opponent "claims" that my chart is "missing, but I'll repost it and tell you how it links to the UN and how to get there. Round 1 link that was provided (. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com...)Step 2: Click "Data Avialbe here" link on the above page. Step 3: It give you the UN page that I provided last round. Thus I have my chart and we can see that my chart still outdates my opponent's by 9 years and must be taken as better evidence in this debate. On reguards to inherency. My opponent states that she doesn't understand, but Inherency is key in this debate. The resolution is "more gun regulation should exist," Inherency here is prooving WHY they should exist. My opponent has only provided solvency. Meaning that, in her opinion, that "gun contorl is effective" that is Solvency. Meaning that it solves the problem, but it cannot solve the problem if my opponent hasn't provided a problem to solve. Thus without Inherency her whole debate argument is pointless. I extend across all dropped arguments.
Entirely unregulated capitalism doesn't work

communism:"a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs."Since the economic reform of china in 1978, it has not been even close to trying to do that. True, the government does get involved in the business some times, for their own gains (Even the US does that sometimes), but it is capitalist in nature primarily.http://www.businessinsider.com...Public backlash may not be as strong as you think. Most every day objects are from china, made from badly exploited workers in horrible working conditions. As long as it isn't directly affecting the person, most people just won't and don't care.Just as people who care about animals and would never directly hurt one, still buy meat from companies that have been proven to be cruel to their animals.Cognitive dissonance is easy to develop.https://www.simplypsychology.org...Right now, unions may work, but as less jobs exist (As we are heading to now, as technology is taking jobs) they get less effective. Unions do help workers but their effectiveness is limited.This is because when people get desperate for work, they stop caring so much about the pay or strikes, they just want to keep their family alive.When the market is in favor of employers, they will exploit. That has been proven by history.While it is true that monopolies won't always raise prices like crazy, they will still raise them as much as they can while people can still afford it in some way. The more necessary the service the worse it gets.I am not arguing that monopolies stifle innovation as I feel it is irrelevant. Monopolies can also cause Cost-Push Inflation. "A good example is OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It sought monopoly power over oil prices. Before OPEC, its members competed with each other on price. They didn't receive a reasonable value for a non-renewable natural resource. OPEC members now produce 42 percent of oil each year. They control 80 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. OPEC members created cost-push inflation during the 1970s oil embargo. When OPEC restricted oil in 1973, it quadrupled prices. In 2014, shale oil producers challenged OPEC's monopoly power. Prices dropped as a result." https://www.thebalance.com...I apologize if I missed anything, and thank you for the debate.
Entirely unregulated capitalism doesn't work

The 2008 study ends up being irrelevant. This is because for businesses to do well, they want to minimize costs and maximize profits. So when businesses themselves do well it doesn't mean it is good for the market or people working there. We don't want the businesses to do too well, because we don't want excessive pricing, or bad working conditions. Even if it did apply, there are no guarantees of even so much as two competitors. An example of this is the American Sugar Refining Company, which at one point owned 98% of the sugar processing capacity. This left no room for competition until it was made to break up. Once someone owns so much of the market they can crush or buy off competition and set any price they want. Because the goal of Capitalism is to out compete your competition to make as much money as possible, sometimes you beat out everything else. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://en.wikipedia.org... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The minimum wage becomes an issue when there aren't enough jobs for the people. In china, in 2009, the average wage was $1.13. This can lead to almost slave like exploitation. In china, this has improved due to population losses from the old one child policy, but is still a problem. This also leads to dumping, which is when a country exports a normally lower quality product for much lower price than locals. Unlike the use of a study, human rights violations as a result of no regulations is well observed in history. In the 1800’s, Work hours were 12-14 hours a day, this came with low pay of which was even lower if you were female or a child. Beatings were also used on employees. So long as the population is high and the laws allow, businesses are known to treat employees badly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://www.bls.gov... http://www.bbc.co.uk... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entirely unregulated capitalism doesn't work

Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.Unregulated means that they don't have to do any and possibly more than the following: Break up monopolies Abide by a minimum wage Follow government set work safety regulations Have quality control standards enforced by the government This would be under the traditional idea that capitalism regulates itself.I am arguing that for the good of general humanity capitalism must be at least somewhat regulated.
This house supports the Jury system

My first argument is that the reliability on the Jury system is too low. Juries recruited for the jury system are normal citizens. Even if the juries go through a test, they are the ones who are not accustomed to judging. It will take some time for them to get used to the atmosphere at the court. The juries are likely to make decisions with just circumstancial evidence. Without a doubt, there is a chance of misjudgment. In cases of death penalties, a misjudgment on the trial is critical.
Resolved: The United States should Significantly Increase its Use of Nuclear Energy

First Id like to apologize for forfitting last round. .. I did not have internet acess ok to the arguments: First: My opponent needs to look back to my round 2 where I proved carbon is released in earlier stages, this is a problem that my opponent has DROPPED Second: Look back to my Contention 2 I showed Radon Krypton and other gases released that have lead to thyroids being removed in Belarus see heres where my opponent needs to look to other examples, how can we look to what has happened in the U. S. when we have never significantly increased use of nuclear energy, my opponent needs to be able to disprove these examples, My Opponent must disprove: Same amount of Carbon emissions by 2050 Noble Gasses And CO2 released in early stages this disproves all the early facts brought up Continuing on, How can it be an important piece of the pie with all these problems happening weither it be with the cooling systems (which is part of nuclear energy) or the waste or anything my opponent has dropped these and dropped my arguments to these Efficiancy. .. .Heres the problem Nuclear Energy currently creates 20% of energy so that would be a 0% Increase it can only create 20% due to increasing demand thus meeting ZERO percent And again the cleanness is incorrect, look to the earlier stages Storage. .. Ok so lets put this into a logical scenario. .. .we increase nuclear energy and increase the need for storage so we increase the use of nuclear energy and the waste creates and then what do we do with it. .. .. .
Resolved: The United States should Significantly Increase its Use of Nuclear Energy

I forfeited round 3 in an effort to even out my opponent's forfeiture of Round 3. Now he has forfeited Round 5. Though my opponent provided some "cons" to the "pros" of the use of nuclear energy, he has not provided any concrete reasons as to why the United States should not significantly increase it's use of nuclear energy. In fact, his contentions- a significant increase would only raise use by 20% max by 2050; demand for energy will increase; etc. are in favor of a significant increase of the use of nuclear energy when we take into consideration his main con- the environment. Nuclear energy is not the safest method for producing energy according to my opponent. Indeed uranium is much more hazardous than coal, but how many people have died in uranium mines compared to those who have died in coal mines? (http://www.world-nuclear.org...) Thousands of Navajo Indians have died mining uranium. This must be acknowledged. But looking at the above information- 5,000 annual deaths in China due to coal mining, thousands dead throughout history in the US, let alone the other accidents associated with the production of energy, nuclear is the safest because the material is the most dangerous forcing companies to take strenuous precautions. The effects of nuclear energy on the environment have been weighed. It is one of the safest and most efficient means of producing energy. It is cheaper energy than coal, it employs technology that is further developed than a massive increase in solar, wind, and hydro energy, and it is amongst the lowest in carbon emissions. Yes- we need to develop safer ways to store and recycle spent rods. Yes, we need to develop safer ways to transport and mine uranium. Yes, we need to find safer ways to cool reactors. The need for development of technology BEFORE significantly increasing the use of nuclear energy does not mean we should not do it. A significant increase would be in harmony with my opponent's contention that it is only possible to raise production by 20% of the total. Current use is at 17% in the US, and a raise in 20% by 2050 is a more than 100% increase- especially if demand rises (to maintain current market share levels). He claims an increase of solar and wind is possible to raise it to 39% by 2050. Great! Those are also essential pieces of the energy pie! In conclusion, in order for the US to accomplish energy independence, security, lower energy costs, and improve greenhouse emissions- the United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy. Thank you.
young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.

You are saying that it is no problem for a 11 year girls to walk into a pharmacy and purchase this pill why would 11 years old girls need to buy these pills ? Because in the first place they shouldn't be sexually active. At what age do we draw the line . The price of the plan B is $50 where is a 11 year old girl going to get that amount of money from if they are not telling their parents or don't need their consent . Don't you think because of the available of the pill now that more girls younger than age 11are going to start having sex? http://m.cvs.com...
young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.

The morning after pill can only be taken within 72 hours after unprotected sex.Each day girls wait their chances of becoming pregnant increase.The Morning after pills do not cause birth defects in women who are already pregnant;the morning after pill when taken causes estrogen levels to rise within the female body giving mixed signals to the sperm trying to fertilize an egg that the female is currently on her period thus killing the sperm off.According to Princeton University"The most serious of these side effects are extremely rare and do no long term damage besides it would be considered by women who choose to use emergency contraception to be a price worth paying for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy" Article source: http://ec.princeton.edu...
young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.

Accoring to this article by Ezine " use of morning after pill raises the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. In such a pregnancy, the embryo gets lodged in the fallopian tubes rather than in the womb" whenever an argument comes up about the morning after pill it alway about the positive aspects . What about the long term and short term side effects that comes along with it. Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com...
young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.

I disagree the morning after pill is not giving teens the OK to have unprotected sex. It's an option to have for just in case something goes wrong; if teens are old enough to engage in sexual intercourse then they are also old enough to know when to buy the morning after pill in a responsible manner. Now if teens have an STD then they shouldn't have unprotected sex with many partners nor should they think that the morning after pill is a cure for a sexual disease. The argument stands to protect women's right for unwanted pregnancy's not a reason to have unprotected sex out of a whim; especially since condoms and birth control are available for people of all ages.
young teenage girls should not be restricted when buying the morning after pill.

The morning after pill should not be banned from young adolescent girls. If restrictions are passed against teenage girls buying pregnancy prevention medication; then these young women will have to go to more extreme measures in ensuring that pregnancy will not be an issue for them. Let's face it most young adults don't share everything with their parents especially things that they feel will get them into trouble. These girls will feel reluctant telling an adult that they are pregnant. Why not allow them to safely prevent something that will no doubt change their lives forever.