BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Overpopulation is imminent and we must prepare.

Thanks, Con, for the response. Con begins his argument by stating, "I never said I doubted the probability of overpopulation happening." However, the very first sentence of his R1 argument reads, "In light of many of these horror stories of overpopulation destroying all resources I have had doubt on the probability of this happening..." In other words, he did in fact say that he doubted overpopulation was occurring. Overpopulation = too many people; not enough resources. Con continues, "Overpopulation is destined to happen in the foreseeable future. I however do doubt that argument that people will become so immense it'll drain resources to the point we can do nothing and the population is set back." This is a direct contradiction of everything Con has said. Overpopulation is defined as filling with excess number of people, thereby straining available resources. So if he thinks overpopulation is destined, then how can he say it won't drain resources? Also, he clarifies that he doesn't think it will drain resources to the point where "we can't turn back" however I would like to know how we won't if we don't take proper precaution and preparation to ensure that this is the case. Moving on, Con claims that the earth's population is rising only in under-developed nations. However, several population agencies agree that the world population will continue to grow [1]. You have to remember that while people in developed nations may not be having as many children, people are also living A LOT longer. Next, Con says that the government can take preventative measures to avoid overpopulation draining resources by doing things such as rationing meals and other goods. However, the process of rationing meals and preserving resources is indeed a method of preparation to avoid overpopulation! So right here, Con defeat his own argument. Con's 4th point says that we can just continue on even if resources fall short. For one, the UN acknowledges that we are in a water crisis; only 1% of the earth's water is available to us [2]. Further, if our water supply is affected or pollution / destruction of the oceans continues to increase, then our food sources in general will be threatened since everything is part of a food chain (and we're at the top). Additionally, anything we'd like to grow needs water (and probably soil). There may be an abundance of land in the midwest now; however, Con cannot speak for the future. Con also notes, "... It will be slightly harder but before that happens hopefully governments will prepare for a replacement. Or grow more and fix the problem." Again Con is saying that the government can/should PREPARE which is exactly what he is supposed to be arguing against. I am agreeing that yes, the government should prepare... Outta character for now - back to ye. [1] http://users.rcn.com... [2] http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Overpopulation is imminent and we must prepare.

Thank you for your enlightening re-argument. //Con begins by stating that he "doubts the probability" of overpopulation happening.// I never said I doubted the probability of overpopulation happening. Overpopulation is destined to happen in the foreseeable future. I however do doubt that argument that people will become so immense it'll drain resources to the point we can do nothing and the population is set back. //(1, 2) While the number of Anglo-American births is going down, the earth's population on the whole is rising; The number of humans is increasing by 1.18% per year... // Although this is true this is mostly in undeveloped countries. As we know the world since the beginning of Civilization has been getting steadily more technological, and the more developed countries have had lower populations. An example would be that in the 1800's America, the pioneers usually had more children to survive. This would be akin to modern Mexico. (This is fact.) http://wiki.answers.com.... As the undeveloped world slowly becomes industrialized as has happened after the 1800's other countries will follow suit. //(3) I'm not sure if people will be "ignorant" to resource shortages though I don't really see how this is relevant...// I am simply saying that people will not eat themselves into poverty and know of any shortages that are underwake, While governments will ration materials similar to 1940' America where the government rationed out stamps as limit for how much of something you could pruchase. http://en.wikipedia.org... (US section) // (4) Con suggests that society will be able to adapt to certain shortages. While I agree that we may be able to find ways to replace oil, I do not see how it is possible that human beings can survive without water...we're losing land that will help us farm... // While I regret adding water to the list, i still stand by what I said when I stated we will be able to adapt to the lack of oil or certain foods (in worst case scenario.) If a product does dissapear, life will go on. The world won't stop turning if we run out of rice. It will be slightly harder but before that happens hopefully governments will prepare for a replacement. Or grow more and fix the problem. My opponent states that land is in short supply and depleting recources. Although on a national scale developed countries arereplacing forest for concret this is very blindsighted on a global level. Even in parts of the country farmland is still abundant. I would know this as a Mid-westerner in which th inside 90% of my home state Missouri is nothing but wheat and billboards. // (5) The answer is no, if conditions keep worsening, we will not be able to// We can always make more of these resources with the exception of oil. Food can be regrown, water can be de-salinized and oil is not alone. As a final note, I will reply to Pro's last paragraph and say that by regulate I meant prepare for a substances loss preemptively. I wait for your reply.
Word Battle !

Hmm it seems you like Philosophy a lot.. Before I present my word I would like to point out Pro had no source so sources can already go to Con pwned- A corruption of the word "Owned." This originated in an online game called Warcraft, where a map designer misspelled "owned." When the computer beat a player, it was supposed to say, so-and-so "has been owned." Instead, it said, so-and-so "has been pwned." It basically means "to own" or to be dominated by an opponent or situation, especially by some god-like or computer-like force. [1] I think pwned should win because it is really amusing and its what we all tend to do to each other on this site :p Vote Con ! http://www.urbandictionary.com... [1]
Year Round Schooling

(ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Stress A state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from adverse or very demanding" (ref: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...) "Burnout Physical or mental collapse caused by overwork or stress" (ref: http://fas.org... http://www.nayre.org...) Balanced schooling results in more frequent, short breaks to prevent stress and mental burnout. These short breaks ensure that students' education is maintained and no significant learning is lost during hiatus. For students struggling in subjects, remediation can and will occur during the school year. This allows them to prioritize and correct difficulties at a more important time as opposed to a later date when the information covered becomes irrelevant. Food for thought: http://www.nea.org... In regards to Con: "Even though you get more schooling, time [in] the blazing hot can cause sickness in the immune system. [...] More schooling means less time off to enjoy yourself." I'd like to first correct you that the amount of learning time and breaks do not change. The only change is frequency and length of individual breaks to create a maintained learning schedule. (ref: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... see: http://www.scripps.edu... http://www.ccohs.ca...) Secondly, most classing takes place within an air conditioned facility. Even if A/C is limited, this heat will not significantly hinder the immune system and the humidity required to harbour any true illness would not be allowed the chance to coagulate. For classing outdoors, clothing choice is usually enforced by the nearest authority to prevent anything that might hinder thermoregulation. Matter of fact, if we're to judge the system on illness prevention, school should only take place in Summer (see: http://www.familiesfightingflu.org...)
Our Current Mandatory Taxation System is Immoral

I should say this is coming from a British perspective. Also while I can make a case for why we should hold the moral standards I use here since you accepted the definition of morality I gave I don't see that I need to. Paying For ViolenceEvery bomb that is dropped, every bulled that fired in anger, every missile, every shell and every explosive is owned by the tax payer in fact a fraction is owned by you specifically. The tax payer pays the salary of the soldier who kills a child in cold blood and the politician who orders a drone strike on a school. The tax payer pays for all the horrors of modern warfare and all without any choice. There are those who do not want to pay for war and violence and if they fall out of line what happens to them? They will be taken away from their lives by force and thrown into what is basically a rape room. In what way could this be considered remotely moral. ExtortionExtortion (defined as using coercion to obtain value) is more or less universally considered immoral. Now apply that definition to the government use of force (a form of coercion) to obtain tax dollars (a form of value) from residents of the country. Non Aggression Principle The non aggression principle is one of the most basic and widely accepted moral standards ever devised and it has some interesting implications when applied to areas that it usually isn't. The non aggression principle is simply that: It is not justified to initiate coercion (physical force, blackmail/threats or fraud) against another and that the only time coercion can be used is in defence against coercion initiated by another party to end their coercion or reclaim any property lost because of the coercion of the other party. Now if you apply the N. A. P. to the idea of enforced taxation you almost certainly will come out with the realisation that the initiation of coercion by the government (either through threats or physical force) is immoral.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

My opponent claims that missing breakfast makes someone eat more, that they are in fog, and can't think straight, well this is true, but I have question for the voters wouldn't missing any meal cause someone to eat more later, unable to focus, or have hungry pains. If someone skips lunch won't they feel the same effects of missing breakfast and eat more later. Wouldn't missing dinner cause someone to eat a lot more after the fast of sleeping all night. No one meal is more important than the other all three are equal to be healthy. The only reason why breakfast is in the decision is because people miss breakfast more than any of the other meals because of it being an early meal, people sleep in, have to go to work, or school, what really is important is making time for each meal. Getting up early for breakfast, take the lunch break, and sit down after a long day to dinner this is what must be done. With my opponent's so called prove about missing breakfast that the studies have shown that someone eats unhealthy or more food than they should couldn't any meal replace breakfast and the same would be true. Eating breakfast and skipping lunch would cause someone to eat more for dinner, or eating breakfast and lunch than skipping dinner would cause someone to eat more for breakfast. Don't believe that one meal is more important than the other eat all three are equal to be healthy skipping one cause the same effects than skipping the others. This is real food for thought Vote con because I hope you see that no one meal is more important than the other they are all on the same grounds and must be treated the same. Sources http://www.livestrong.com...
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

See your fault here is, you are not counter arguing my points, you are simply making excuses for them. Once again "You have stated that eating more food throughout the day can make up for a missed breakfast". Maybe that is correct but it is nothing to do with this particular argument, how does that have anything to do with the fact that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I think you need to review that. And please let us not further discuss this, clearly you have made a mistake, but the world is still turning. Anyway getting back to the real thing... Now obviously, food is fuel and energy for our bodies and without it we spend the day stumbling around in a fog and fighting off a headache and a bad attitude. Breakfast is literally just that, breaking the fast that your body is in from the night before. The consumption of an early morning snack increases the metabolic rate (how fast you burn calories) and kick starts your body into gear, telling it what to expect the rest of the day. If breakfast isn't had, your body doesn't process your next meal as quickly and tries to hold onto those nutrients. Since it didn't get any morning fuel, it tries to hold onto the afternoon meal as long as possible " instead of burning it right away. Studies have shown that weight loss can be more difficult and weight gain more prevalent in folks who opt out on the morning meal. Those who skip breakfast have a tendency to consume more food than usual the next chance they get to grab a bite to eat and also have a higher tendency to snack on high-calorie foods to keep hunger at bay until then. So if you don't eat some form of breakfast you are likely to gain weight in the long term. Because it HAS been proven that you are more likely to source out high calorie snacks at lunch time or anytime between 11-2... So, after reviewing BOTH sides of the argument, I have come to the conclusion that Breakfast IS the most IMPORTANT meal of the day. This is because world wide results have proven that if you skip breakfast, come lunchtime, your brain is primes to seek out unhealthy food for the satisfaction of being "full". Therefore, you will, in the long term, gain (and it has been proven) 20% more weight than you would if you ate breakfast every morning, if not at least on a very regular basis. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I will stick to my side of the argument. To CON, thank you for a good debate, you humored me the whole way through. To the VOTERS, please vote PRO! Because: Pro presented reliable, relevant arguments Con presented weak, unreliable arguments Pro had better conduct, spelling and grammar Con kept repeating himself and did failed to counter argue my points So for those reasons VOTERS VOTE PRO!!! That is all, thank you very much CON, Thank you very much VOTERS! :)
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

You have stated that eating more food throughout the day can make up for a missed breakfast. This is nothing to do with the matter at hand.Actually it is, all your points that deal with skipping breakfast deal with the idea that someone will eat more throughout the day or unhealthy after skipping breakfast, I'm just going to argue on the opposite side of the debate. So I would ask it you would rethink your argument.When you eat dinner or lunch you have an unhealthy meal selection compared to breakfast.It doesn't matter you can eat a salad, fish, soup, etc. for lunch or dinner which are healthy and can eat donuts, cinnamon buns,cereals,bacon, ham,sausages,fruit Juice,muffins have been proven to be unhealthy breakfast foods. It is up to the individual to choose what they eat. How people lose weight is to increase exercise and reduce calorie intake. The average amount of calories that someone is expected to eat is 2,000 and if the person eats a three meal day that is average of 667 calories per meal and if someone skips breakfast they can add that 667 calories to the other meals or not eat them at all which would be limiting calorie intake. How people lose weight is about what they eat an how much exercise they get. A person could be just as unhealthy with breakfast than without. All your points that have scientific study are all irrelevant because they deal with the fact that someone who skips breakfast will choose unhealthy foods or eat more how this could be stopped by will power and that one study you cited about people rating chocolate and salad who wouldn't choose chocolate over salad. It doesn't matter when you eat it matters what you eat.sourceshttp://recipes.howstuffworks.com...http://www.nichetopics.info...http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

I will prove that breakfast which typically eaten between the time of 5 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. is not the most important meal of the day. I will also prove that not having breakfast doesn't mean you will have a bad day. That no eating breakfast doesn't mean the person will have concentration, metabolism, weight problems. That eating more food throughout the day can make up for a missed breakfast. Since my opponent stated that this is all she will say I will do the same and let her have the first crack at proving her case.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.

Breakfast IS the most important meal of the day and here is a brief explanation of why. Breakfast is the first thing you consume in the morning, therefore it has the "expectation" to "kick start" your day. So that is saying that to have a good start to the day you NEED breakfast. Nonetheless people still argue that breakfast has no impact on the rest of your day (not including morning), which is untrue. Nutritional experts have referred to breakfast as the most important meal of the day, citing studies that find that people who skip breakfast are disproportionately likely to have problems with concentration, metabolism, and weight. That is all I will say for now.
God probably exists

Argument from awareness My opponent asserts that as God is the most aware creature this poses the question of who created God. That however entails God having a beginning of existence which strawmans the general theistic view that God is timeless. As my opponent does not bring up any sound objections as well as essentially failing to address my main points, please extend this argument. Moral argument My opponent again strawmans my point and claims that I cannot prove that the Christian God specifically accounts for moralities when there are thousands of other Gods. I was not trying to prove the Christian God with this argument, rather just God in general. I attempted to prove Christianity further on in my case,(an argument which con entirely ignores) so cons objections are irrelevant. My opponent quotes another large section of my argument and says that he has to drop it for now. I'm not sure what he means by "for now", as this is the last round, but as my opponent has not raised any objections to the actual argument please extend this entire contention. Prophecies My opponent ignores this point. Please extend. Cons case Con brings up two points this round. For the first contention he asks who created God? This has already been addressed. If God was timeless he would necessarily not require a beginning. There is nothing to suggest God has to have had a beginning. The second point he presents is that there is no evidence. If my opponent does not think I have brought up any sound arguments perhaps he could try responding more to them? Re-cap I have brought up three arguments. Two were made to prove the existence of God. One was made to prove Christianity. 1. My opponent drops my point that naturalism could not account for objective morality and that objective morality does exist. If God and naturalism are the only two possible explanations for objective morality and my opponent drops my point that naturalism could not account for it than that is essentially conceding the existence of God. .. His only attempt at refuting the moral argument was to claim that it did not prove the Christian God. That is misunderstanding its purpose. It's not supposed to prove the Christian God, just God. I supported Christianity latter on. 2. My opponent brings up a mostly irrelevant point in his attempt to refute my awareness argument. 3. My opponent entirely drops the prophecies argument, thus dropping my only argument for Christianity specifically. Con hasn't really put much effort into this debate. I strongly think a pro vote is most justified.
God probably exists

Now I wish Pro went first, but doesn't matter. In this debate, Pro has to prove it is more likely the Christian God ( and his most common qualities that come with him/her/it.) I will admit I will be busy in the next 2 days so I will out line my points. P1. There is no empirical evidence that god exists. P2. The bible is lacking in prove of god getting a little lazy but I will let Pro get the first shots.
Animals Should Be Treated Equally

We share the Earth with other living things of different species. Humans rule the world because they're the only species civilized enough to have created their own language and discover/develop new forms of technology, but does that give them the right to abuse and mistreat animals? I think not. Animal testing is a prime example of humans exerting power over helpless lab animals. "Over 100 million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned, and abused in US labs every year.92% of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human clinical trials because they are too dangerous or don"t work."* *(https://www.dosomething.org...) We also capture animals from the wild, their natural habitat, and put them in glass containments known as a zoo or aquarium, where they are susceptible to unnatural behaviors.** Animals in captivity can also cause unnecessary deaths for zooworkers, guests at the zoo, as well as other animals. Imagine what it would be like to live in a bathtub or bedroom for the rest of your life without much freedom to roam around. (https://m.youtube.com...) No need to get me started on slaughterhouses; this video should cover it.*** ***(https://m.youtube.com...) All in all, I think humans feel superior**** to all other forms of life on this Earth which isn't necessarily untrue but it definitely doesn't constitute the right to abuse animals, whether it be pets, slaughterhouse animals, or zoo animals being held in captivity. **** Superior: of higher rank or status. Nothing states the right to treat animals as our scapegoat.
Animals Should Be Treated Equally

earth"ling G2;ərTHliNG noun plural noun: earthlings an inhabitant of the earth (used especially in science fiction by members of alien species). spe"cies"ism G2;spēSHēG6;zizəm,spēsē- noun the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals. 4 rounds; 1st to accept, 2nd debate, 3rd rebuttals, 4th closing statements.
the olympic games are no longer the friendship games

The topic: "The Olympic games are no longer the friendship games." Definitions ============== No Longer: Not anymore. Resolution Analysis ===================== The topic quite clearly means that at some point the Olympic games were the friendship games but this is not the case anymore. Case ============ My opponent quite clearly states, "the Olympic games were NEVER the friendship games!" Thus it is impossible for them to NO LONGER be the friendship games on the premise that they NEVER WERE the friendship games. This proves the resolution to be a false statement. I adopt the position that the Olympics are simply, "Not the friendship games." Thank you.