BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vegetarianism is good for your health

Sorry I thought "vegan" was short form of "vegetarian". I'm not saying that being a vegetarian ALWAYS means bad health. I mainly state that being vegetarian has a risk of a lot of medical conditions. "Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with." Depression can happen to anyone, so can Alzheimer's disease. Baby development could become bad with poor nutrition but Omega 3 helps it become better, not prevents it to become bad. As for asthma and blood fat, you can get it with poor nutrition but Omega 3 will help prevent it as a bonus and anyway, its better to just eat a fish than to go checking out everything to keep your nutrition perfect. And anyway, there is nothing BAD about eating fish anyway. "Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans." Even eating dairy products will not stop you overall eating more carbs than a normal person. On most websites its says that vegetarians get about 70-80% of their calories from carbs, whereas the healthy average should be 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat. I also have a weight program (I use it for fun mainly). I used it when I had an assignment about the same topic, and whenever I did a vegetarian diet, I ended up with too much carbs. That also means that you get low fat and protein, which makes it double bad. True that is their source of protein, I agree, I can't say no. But my main statement of my argument is that meat does no harm. Eating raw meat is bad for you and causes problems, so is eating too much (both cooked and low cooked). So if you eat well cooked meat, and eat it the right amount, the problems associated with meat are very low, but the problems associated with NOT eating meat are way more. And anyway the Omega 3 fatty acid, B12, animal protein and creatine come in as a bonus, whereas being non-vegetarian never excluded vegetarian foods, so its got their vitamins and health stuff too.
Vegetarianism is good for your health

"Also being a vegan will cause you to naturally eat more carbohydrates which will cause you to become overweight as well" This is about vegetarianism not veganism. Most vegetarians do consume dairy products, thus not vegans. "Beans and nuts DO have protein but a person can't live with dairy foods, beans and nuts." That is their form of protein but with that and fruits and vegetables they can get a complete diet with everything they need in it. Omega 3 fatty acids are not necessary, especially in a vegetarian diet. I know they do the body good but that is to fight off problems caused by poor diet to begin with. So why not prevent the problem to not need a solution (omega 3 fatty acids as the solution) to begin with? You seem to argue that vegetarians can not be healthy due to a lack of meat protein and other nutrients found only in meat. However the existence of healthy vegetarians suggests that to be incorrect. Here is a list of famous vegetarians. http://en.wikipedia.org... It is a rather long list that includes people from all walks of life. Some are even professional athletes like Herschel Walker, obviously a healthy man. As with an omnivore diet, vegetarians must watch what they eat and have a well balanced diet. They can be healthy and are many times less likely to suffer from the many ailments associated with meat consumption.
Vegetarianism is good for your health

Of course eating too much meat is unhealthy, so is eating too less meat. We need an average of 125 grams meat per day and vegans get 0. The HIGH meat diet in America has caused high obesity whereas if they had a normal diet of meats, obesity would decrease dramatically. Some health problems occur if the meat is undercooked, so the high degree of a barbecue or other cooking device has not killed off the bacteria in the meat. Also being a vegan will cause you to naturally eat more carbohydrates which will cause you to become overweight as well. Beans and nuts DO have protein but a person can't live with dairy foods, beans and nuts. Also there are nutrients not found in the vegan diet nor possible to replace such as the Omega-3 fatty acid listed in my last argument.
Vegetarianism is good for your health

Although I am far from a vegetarian I do see the health benefits in that lifestyle. However one can not just go and eat just anything vegetarian and think that is good for them. http://www.livestrong.com... "According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians are also at lower risk for becoming obese, due to diets with significantly lower levels of saturated fat and cholesterol. It is important, however, to plan your vegetarian diet so that you are consuming sufficient levels of all necessary nutrients." Too much meats in our diets are the cause of many health problems. However if a vegetarian lives off junk food like soda and potato chips of course he is not going to be healthy. Most vegetarians, especially those who actually studied nutrition, are much healthier than the average omnivore. As for the proteins found in meats, foods such as beans and nuts have protein as well. I am not denying the benefits of meat protein but I am saying it can easily be substituted in a vegetarian diet. That way they get the benefits of the proteins without the health risks associated with meats. America has a high meat diet and a high obesity rate. All medical evidence in the field of nutrition would suggest that that is not a coincidence.
Vegetarianism is good for your health

Thank you for accepting. First of all I would like to say that vegetarianism is a terrible idea because we are omnivores, so we need both animals and plants in our diet. But my first main argument is about the medical condition risks. First of all you do not get enough vitamin B12 which means you don't have the proper vitamin to create your DNA, function the brain and make red blood cells. You also could get the symptoms: sore tongue, constipation or diarrhea, rapid breathing and heartbeat, easy bruising and bleeding, upset stomach, tiredness and weakness. You can get vitamin B12 by eating a lot of dairy foods but even that would cause diarrhea, and even the much rarer problems could be some kinds of cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Believe it or not, one study showed 92% of vegetarians have vitamin B12 deficiency. Other nutrition things needed that vegans don't get a lot are: 1. Animal protein; animal protein is important for muscle mass, bone structure and more importantly, amino acids. 2. Creatine; low creatine is harmful for muscle and brain function. 3. Omega-3 fatty acid; helps depression, prevents asthma, helps blood fat, prevents Alzheimer's disease, helps baby development and much more. Sources http://www.webmd.com... http://www.webmd.com... http://www.newlr.com... http://authoritynutrition.com... I await your argument.
Voluntaryism is correct.

Last round I quoted CON and I said I agreed with the following statement "The child deserves positive liberty - a freedom to be raised up happily and enjoy greater freedom in later life..." given the prevalent definitions of the word deserve. I meant to only include this part, not the part after the elipses. My apologies. I will make less errors in the future. Before we proceed, I need to clarify exactly what my prescription is for future forms of government or lack thereof. I do not think hastily transitioning to large scale anarchy is a good idea. I think I am a relatively sane person and as such I am not eager to venture carelessly into that particular great unknown. I think basically, you are saying that the government should make everyone’s lives better and by whatever means necessary. I am saying that I agree with that but that the best means for doing that is that the government should cautiously but vigorously decentralize authority and deregulate the economic association of individuals. until eventually, the process gives rise to various entirely voluntary societies. I am also saying that even if we somehow cannot get all the way there, in the long run, more people will live better lives sooner. What I am not saying is that we should completely abandon the concept immediately and everywhere. I am saying the earth is vast and resources abound. Technology is daily going places few ever imagined it would 20 years ago. There is no legitimate, sane reason that a few hundred organizations have ultimate authority over all the land. I love ideas like what should be called semi-secession, like when counties secede from a state to create a new state(subordinate government). Hell, I'd be happy if we could just get some border counties switch states. The more we can subdivide government, or even just legal authority, the better and more fairly government will function. As a result of this opinion, I am also for shifting powers and responsibility's downward to lower level governments, in general. I am less confident in trusting the state and local governments with military responsibilities for what I think are obvious reasons. Con made strong arguments using the concept of externalities. Because of length constraints I will just start to address them, Externalities are one of the most important concepts in the field of economics. "In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit.[1] " One example of a negative externality is a tax. A tax is a cost of doing business that a party does not choose to incur, in the sense that if you don't want to risk going to jail, you need to pay your taxes. Another such example is the massive disincentive to work and educate oneself provided by the massive welfare systems many governments have. An even more important example are the existence of severe welfare cliffs in the payout structures of welfare systems particularly in the USA.
Voluntaryism is correct.

As stated, I’ll spend this round arguing against the economics of voluntarism. As such, I apologise but I must assume everyone’s familiarity with S&D graphs. This basic supply and demand tells us that the equilibrium occurs when the price of a good is £12, and 7 goods are traded. This is most efficient point because the most trades take place. However, is it the most equitable? Normally, yes. However, what if there is, say, a positive externality? Suppose the good is vaccine patents, which is clearly linked with better health standards. Though the supplier is the patent owner, and the demand are medical companies, third parties (civilians for example) who want more sales to occur are ignored, as they are neither buyers nor sellers. If we account for the third party, the demand graph looks like this: When we ignore the social benefit, we can see the Private Market Benefit (PMB). When we account for third parties, we can see the Social Market Benefit (SMB). My opponent’s argument is that voluntarism “would make society function more efficiently and increase … welfare”. Voluntarism necessarily means that only a PMB equilibrium can be reached. However, a PMB equilibrium is necessarily worse than a SMB equilibrium. Indeed, the textbook case of market failure is when externalities are not taken into account.[1] To put this argument less graphically and more intuitively: a good costs its market price. However, the market price does not take into account the social price (e.g. pollution, or destabling property rights, or congestion, or more violent populace). Therefore, the ‘true’ cost of a good is its market price + social price. A purely voluntary market does not account for the social price, however, and so is a less efficient and less equitable system than voluntarism. I simply shall spend the rest of this round cross-examining my opponent. Firstly, he states “all else being equal, an increase in mean, median, or net welfare is something that should happen.” I ask if he is familiar with Swift’s Modest Proposal’s conclusion that, as eating the Irish and selling their children would improve net welfare in Ireland in his time, it was a travesty we did not embark on such a policy. Secondly, I ask a more general question: if he is “not attempting to argue…because of some objective moral truth”, why should we promote welfare? If I do not value others’ welfare, why should we promote it? Finally, I think my opponent misrepresents me slightly. I simply stated that [coercively] appropriating a loaf of bread from the rich to stop a poor family starving is morally just – there are of course costs. The rich family lacks a loaf of bread. My opponent asks rhetorically “at what cost?” comes this redistribution. I must admit I do not know what cost makes this act unjust, and hope my opponent can enlighten me. I pass over to my opponent for his next round. 1 - http://www.s-cool.co.uk...
Voluntaryism is correct.

I am embarrassed by my previous response because I confused positive and negative freedom. But, somehow the confusion didn't prevent me from making useful arguments so I will take pride in that. I said "I reject the idea of negative freedom as useful concept for determining which political policies or structures would make 'society function more efficiently and increase average, median, and net welfare.' " I meant to say positive freedom. my argument that when governments attempt to make policies which guarantee positive freedoms, they must remove negative and/or positive freedom somewhere else. The empirical evidence shows that this results in a net reduction of positive freedom, in the long run, because there is almost always a net negative impact on economic and technological growth when government attempts to guarantee positive freedoms.I think my contention that wide-spread adoption of Voluntaryism would make society function more efficiently and increase average, median, and net welfare, is equivalent to saying that Voluntaryism is correct because the generally accepted definition is that Voluntaryism is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. I am not attempting to argue that it should be voluntary because of any objective moral truth or that adoption of voluntaryism will guarantee utopia. I think it is uncontroversial that, all else being equal, an increase in mean, median, or net welfare is something that should happen.CON wrote "The child deserves positive liberty - a freedom to be raised up happily and enjoy greater freedom in later life - and our distaste of coercion should be trumped by our moral decency, and so voluntarism, which bans coercion, is unjustified." based on the prevalent definitions of "deserve" I agree with this. This word "deserve" I think is the crux of the issue. Deserve is define as 1. Having worth, merit, or value; useful or valuable. I would not dispute that a child has worth merit and value. The question is "At what cost?" Regardless of your acceptance of my conclusions about the economic superiority, you must accept that there will be some cost to providing for that positive freedom. If we are going to have fallible people making decisions weighing the costs against the value of providing for myriad positive freedoms, they will make mistakes. If this is done in an authoritarian manner, it will be more centralized and therefore more mistakes will be made. Centralization of such decision making tends to lead to worse results because less information is considered. Authoritarian governments, and power structures tend to be more centralized because those with the authority are emotionally attached to the status quo, and decentralization threatens to erode their authority. I am going to postpone the Hobbesian argument until next round. Bring the heat!
Voluntaryism is correct.

I shall build my case quickly, and attempt to address my opponent as I go. Then, I'll address solely my opponent's economic argument next round. Firstly, my opponent accurately defines negative freedom. It describes - and not prescribes - an absence of restraint. No negative freedom can be forcibly given, it logically follows. Negative liberty is, for example, freedom to buy healthcare. Your negative freedom is restricted by any government activity, though, because government activity coerces you into doing a certain action. So, take the example of, say, a parent who wanted a boy but got a girl, so leaves the child in a bin outside the clinic to die. A gruesome example, but an example of what happens when we have only negative liberty. In voluntarism, all actions here was voluntary. No-one was coerced into an action. Yet this is clearly wrong. Clearly, the child deserves a better life than this. This alone is so obvious to me that I cannot think of any moral justification or principle PRO can establish which is more likely. The child deserves positive liberty - a freedom to be raised up happily and enjoy greater freedom in later life - and our distaste of coercion should be trumped by our moral decency, and so voluntarism, which bans coercion, is unjustified. Now I shall make my Hobbesian case. Voluntarism requires all bonds to be voluntary. Therefore, any coercive bond is banned in voluntarism. But what if coercion is essential to all relationships? Coercion is the persuasion of someone by the use of power. Yet, as Hobbes reminds us, "Reputation of power, is power"[1]. Consider any relationship with someone else. They always involve some power being exacted by an individual over another - whether is is reputation of power, or natural powers (personal skills), or a peron's friends, or a perosn's servants all make someone more powerful, and able to get more from negotiating a contract. We must ask - if there is coercion when robbers threatens to harm you by killing you, is there coercion when a capitalist threatens to harm you by taking your job? Society is a contract, contracts made up of many power relations. Teacher-student power relations; employer-employee relations; parent-child; all relations involve power and implicit coercion, as a threat to your happiness always exists. I do not claim the threat is explicit, but it is more maliciously subtle and tacit. We are shocked when power relations are explicitly represented by the gun, but the implicit power dynamic is so ingrained in society we are not surprised when it is used. The meaning of words like 'good' and 'evil' are dependent on where you live. If so, it makes sense that this is partly determined by culture. But even our underlying culture is then involuntarily determined for us. Voluntarism rests on the assumption it is possible to have only voluntary relationships. Yet if even our culture is involuntarily thrust upon us, voluntarism cannot be sound. I look forward to PRO's response.
Voluntaryism is correct.

Thanks. I like the two avenues you have decided on to argue the issue. You have adeptly expressed your opinion and intent. I think that your second avenue, from the modern liberal perspective of negative rights, is the more effective one, so I will address the other one next roundI reject the idea of negative freedom as useful concept for determining which political policies or structures would make "society function more efficiently and increase average, median, and net welfare."1 (my original assertion) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes negative freedom as "the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints." Essentially if one is suggesting that the government should provide for one's negative freedom, by means of forcibly ceasing the wealth of its citizens, one is suggesting that the government should make everyone poorer in the long run by slowing economic growth.It is clear to a rational mind that "Less government interference in the economy leads to greater rates of economic growth, ceteris paribus." is a rule to which there are, at most, a few exceptions during the history of post-industrial human society. Accurately representative indices of economic freedom correlate very highly with rates of economic growth when controlling for other variables in panel data analysis on economic growth.2 Moreover it is evidenced everyday everywhere around you. Very often where you see the government saying what can and can't be done or by whom, you see massive inefficiency, often due to artificially monopolistic markets, which would see much more competition if the government stay out of it. "Stay out of it Nick Lachey!"3 This begs a discussion of crony-capitalism and regulatory capture (I will save for next round). Given those two sources of evidence I think it is fair to say that the following is an accurate description of reality. When there comes to be an authority, in a certain physical domain (land for instance), that claims the right to decide upon the rules which govern human interaction(laws), that authority should be either A. an individual consciousness or B. a voluntary association of consciousness's. It is inherent in the nature of conscious being that they will be more satisfied if they don't feel forced into obeying unnecessary rules. Why? Because conscious intelligence will naturally desire to explore "What is possible!?" and try to maximize the answer to that question. They do so all while simultaneously attempting to actualize a previously or newly discovered possibility.The human condition is the presence of obstacles, barriers, and constraints. The only state in which a being can lack all of those is a state where said being has no unaccomplished goals. There is perhaps an infinitesimally small percentage of conscious beings on record who appear to have achieved such a state on a philosophical and fundamental level. Even those must exploit the laws of reality to preserve their existence.Source links in the comments.
Voluntaryism is correct.

However, I will make clear my position. I will be arguing first from a Hobbesian perspective that certain human relationships - that is, the rules of human relationships - cannot be voluntary, because they are forced upon us at birth and are part of our development of persons. For example, I shall argue that language, such as 'right', 'wrong', and 'just', are for the vast majority of us are constructed by society. Secondly, I shall argue from a modern liberal perspective that positive freedoms, being as valuable as negative freedoms, sometimes require the minor infringement of one person's liberties to maximise another. Finally, I shall argue that all forms of social interaction involves implicit, or tacit, coercion by the fact that reputation is power, in another Hobbesian form. With any of these three arguments, of course, the resolution is negated, but I shall use these three prongs to outline my argument. I look forward to my opponent's opening speech.
Voluntaryism is correct.

Here is the wikipedia description of it, which I agree with completely. My position is that wide-spread adoption of Voluntaryism would makes society function more efficiently and increase average, median, and net welfare. Voluntaryism (or sometimes voluntarism), is a libertarian philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary.[1] The principle most frequently used to support voluntaryism is the non-aggression principle (NAP). It is closely associated with, and often used synonymously with, the anarcho-capitalist philosophy. Many voluntaryists base their thinking on the ideas of voluntaryist philosophers Murray Rothbard and Robert LeFevre. Rothbard maintained, first, that every government "presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. So that individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so"; and, second, that every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically labeled "taxation". "All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property."[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...