BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You choose the topic

AC I'm not sure why my links did that uptop. Sorry about that here are the proper links MSNBC on Mixify: http://www.msnbc.com... Harvard on Sugary beverages: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu... The first mistake in linkage is not a reason to vote Con, it was an honest mistake. Read the articles, they're still sound in supporting the argument that was made. You can enjoy unhealthy things in moderation without claiming them to be better than healthy things. I can eat a cheeseburger without claiming to to be better than a salad. The only thing I have to maintain is that coffee without sugar is better than coffee with sugar. I don't have to throw coffee with sugar under the bus. Dependency is not inherently harmful, but dependence on sugar is. Coffee and Caffeine don't cause diabetes or obesity while sugar does. The problem comes from a dependency on sugar specifically. The moderation argument is not a strawman, it came before any negative arguments were made at all. It is a constructive argument to give nuance and balance to the pro in order to encourage more thoughtful and balanced debate practices. NC Multiple pieces of trash evidence don't strengthen a claim, they only encourage appeal to authority fallacies. The quora article was an anecdotal account of a restaraunt employee and the statbrain source was blatantly doctored by Con. The voting issue under evidence doctoring is that it is a dishonest practice that intentionally misleads readers. Articifical Sweetened and sugar are no the same thing - they serve similar purposes, but sugar is chemically different from something like Splenda or Equal. Showing people put sweetener in their coffee is not a reason to vote Con. I work at McDonalds as the mid-day manager, and I could (honestly) tell you that most people order their coffee black. It doesn't matter though because it's anecdotal - there's no falsifiable behind the claim. Con's analysis on the statbrain source would like claiming that 100% of the earth was covered in land if a source said '100% of the earth is covered in land or water' - you can't meaningfully draw anything from that. If people need to mask the taste of something to drink it, they don't like the thing they're drinking. That is a logically sound argument. Con drops my evidence indicts against Mutter and Harcombe, so if nothing else he loses for promoting bad scholarship. More on that at the bottom. The SFGate article claims that sugar can raise cholesterol and that cholesterol is bad for your health. It is a net negative for the Con. At best, moderation is a wash for both sides. Impact Calculus Con's misuse of evidence, article skimming, evidence doctoring and promotion of fad diets as sound medical advice promote bad scholarship and are exemplars of bad debate. These are reasons to vote him down independent of any other topical content.
You choose the topic

Rebuttals on 1AC: First is evidence. My opponent defends his claim but doesn't link it to any specific piece of evidence. Both the Harvard School of Public Health and MSNBC links to the websites home pages, but not to any papers or articles that back his claim. Thus, due to not providing the links to the actual articles, the judge should drop this argument. Second is the use of extremes. The nature of this debate is to discuss whether coffee is better with or without sugar. In dependency, my opponent states "by all means put a little sugar in your coffee". In health, he states "there is nothing wrong with indulging in these things periodically". However, in his arguments, he assumes a relatively large consumption of sugar and makes health arguments (diabetes and obesity) based on overconsumption. The negative stance, however, is to defend coffee with sugar is better assuming moderate consumption. Thus the arguments are non-topical. Third is the dependency disadvantage is non-unique. Dependence on coffee can result without the use of sugars via caffeine dependence (Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org..., http://news.nationalgeographic.com...). Fourth is my opponents critique on moderation. He states that the idea of moderation "creates the idea [that] things such as candy and soda can be a regular part of a healthy diet". Note that this is a straw man argument as the Negation is not promoting candy or soda as a regular part of a healthy diet, nor has my opponent given evidence of why that would take place in the public perception. Defending 1NC: First note that Quora serves as valuable source when it provides evidence that is backed up by other sources (in this case Statbrain). Multiple pieces of evidence together increases reliability of source. Because I have two pieces of evidence, the judge should drop the unreliability argument. Second, whilst it is true that both sources state either coffee and cream (or and artificial sweeteners), the statistic is still valid as artificial sweeteners and cream are substitutes for sugar. I showed under science that sugar, cream and sweeteners all serve to mask the bitter taste of coffee. In a binary world where cream and artificial sweeteners aren't an option, sugar will be used to mask such taste (people will transition from cream and sweeteners to sugar). Thus, both the Quora and Statbrain numbers are still valid. Third, my opponent comes up with no refutation under science. All he says is that people who add sugar don't like the taste of coffee. Whether that is or is not the case is irrelevant. The fact is, people prefer coffee with sugar (or some other substitute) than plain coffee without. Fourth, I provided a link to the research that Mutter's claim was based off. Mutter was not one of those involved. Fifth, On the SFGate article, I agree that it does caution against eating TOO MUCH sugar. Again, I argue based on moderation.
You choose the topic

Taste Quora is not an authoritative source. The first line notes that Luster watched what customers at his job ordered with their coffee. Even then, more people drank black coffee (39) than coffee with sugar (34). the 90 number con gives is doctored by adding together sugar and artificial sweetener. The doctored citation is an independent reason to vote Pro. Statbrain makes a distinction between black coffee (which 35% of people drink) and people who added sugar OR cream to their coffee (65%). Con presents this number as people who add sugar when it really represents multiple variables. He doesn't try to cite 'Coffee or cream' in his prior round, he outright omits 'or cream. Do not vote on doctored sources, vote Pro on Academic integrity. Science The telegraph article shows that sugar masks the taste of caffeine, an essential element of coffee. People who add sugar do so because they don't like this taste.Those who have to add sugar to their coffee in order to drink it don't like the taste of coffee in the first place, but rather of sugar. Mutter is a celebrity doctor who's work has almost no support in the medical community[1]. His advice should be given as much weight as the likes of Dr. Oz. Mutter's medicial opinions are such in order to push spurious supplements and diet books which he profits off of. He also promotes 'detox treatments' which the medical community, again, debunks[2]. Mutter is a bad scientist who lies in order to profit. [1] http://nymag.com... [2] http://www.theguardian.com... Harcombe is even worse than Mutter. She lacks an M.D. or Ph.D, but relies on appeals to authority to sell products and books. The ASA[3] investigated six advertisements from her and found five to be intentionally misleading. Harcombe propagates bad science by leading potential buyers to believe she is an authority (such as calling herself a Ph.D student despite not being enrolled anywhere[4]) and uses that buy in to sell more books. At least Mutter had an M.D. [3] https://www.asa.org.uk... [4] http://www.theguardian.com... The SFGate article is a caution against eating too much sugar, read it. Impact Calculus Even if we accept Con's expanded frame on 'Better' to include preference for taste, he still fails to show that more people prefer coffee with sugar. Instead he skims a few articles and posts them in the hopes that he can have readers vote on an appeal to authority. Prioritize concrete benefits such as health over intangibles. Second, is that Con's misuse of evidence promotes bad debate practices and academic dishonesty. Con never formulates an original argument, but instead cites various sources which fail to intersect.
You choose the topic

First I'll like to note the resolution is skewed in favor of Aff. But here it goes... Observation: Superior quality does not only concern health. Taste and other factors are important when considering "better". Cont 1 - Taste A - Poll Luster https://www.quora.com... Coffees Served: 129 Added Sugar or Artificial Sweeteners: 90 No Sweetening: 39 70% of people add sugar to their coffee Live Science, September 2015 http://www.statisticbrain.com... Study found that 65% of people add sugar to their coffee From both studies, the majority (approximately 2/3rds) of people prefered adding sugar to their coffee. It should be concluded that coffee with sugar tastes better than coffee without (according to the majority of people). B - Science Knapton http://www.telegraph.co.uk... It is the caffeine in coffee and tea which is responsible for the bitter taste. But when sugar is added it causes caffeine molecules to clump together so they have less surface area to stimulate the taste buds. Cont 2 - Sugar raises LDL, which is good for the brain Perlmutter, MD http://www.drperlmutter.com... http://www.drperlmutter.com... Low density lipoprotein has been given a bad rap. LDL is a carrier protein, one of its [functions] is to carry [cholesterol], a fundamentally important chemical, to every cell in the body. This chemical is a critical component of cell membranes, serves as a brain antioxidant, and is the raw material from which your body manufactures vitamin D, cortisol, estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone. Low levels of LDL [is] associated with compromise of brain tissue. Researchers concluded that higher levels of LDL were associated with less risk of [worrisome] brain changes. Increasing [LDL] cholesterol tended to be associated with a decreased frequency and severity of all MRI markers of cerebral small vessel disease. This study is one of many that should clearly reframe our view of LDL as higher levels appear to be strongly brain protective. Cont 3 - Sugar increases cholesterol, which is beneficial to the body A - Cholesterol is good Harcombe http://www.zoeharcombe.com... Cholesterol is [vital] to the human body. If you had no cholesterol in your body you would be dead. No cells, no bone structure, no muscles, no hormones, no sex, no reproductive system, no digestion, no brain function, no memory, no nerve endings, no movement, no human life - nothing without cholesterol. It is utterly vital. B - Sugar increases cholesterol Perkins, Nurse http://healthyeating.sfgate.com... Sugar calories increase cholesterol. Thus I negate.
You choose the topic

All of these topics are pretty heavy, heavier than I wanted when starting this debate. This debate is now about Coffee. Coffee without sugar is better than coffee with sugar First is dependency, Let me start out by saying that I am not arguing that if someone wants to put sugar in their coffee that they are a bad person. This argument does not start from a place of elitism or purism. What I am arguing is that coffee that does not have sugar in it is better than coffee that does have it. I understand that it can take time to get used to drinking coffee black or with only cream, and that sweetener can help one become used to the taste. If you are a fledgling coffee addict, then by all means put a little sugar in your coffee - the issue arises when one continues to sweeten their coffee after years of drinking it. This also leads to the the conflation of coffee with soda and other caffeinated beverages. As any coffee drinker should know the more one drinks coffee, the more dependent they become on it to start their day. By failing to acknowledge that unsweetened coffee is better than sweetened coffee one will never think to check how dependent they are on the sugar in their drinks. Next is health, Sugary beverages are a leading cause of diabetes and obesity the world over[1]. Particularly when one becomes used to the sweetness of their drinks, she or he may not realize how much sugar they are really consuming. By failing to recongize that coffee without sweetener is better than coffee with sweetener, we contribute to these unhealthy habits and promote cardiovascular disease for the next generation. It's not even enough to promote the idea of moderation with with sugary beverages, as it creates the idea things such as candy and soda can be a regular part of a healthy diet. The criticism behind mixify[2] is a good example of this - while there is nothing wrong with indulging in these things periodically, we're fooling ourselves if we think we try to pretend that we can outwork a bad diet. [1] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...... [2] http://www.msnbc.com...... As an underview, I want to note that this health-centric position of advocacy is by no-means critical of larger-folks, but of the poor habits which contribute to the unnecessary spread of disease. Food is a cultural reality and we shouldn't expect to be able to change deeply ingrained habits overnight. What we can however do, is recognize our bad habits and start change them slowly. These kinds of changes in behaviour should stem from a place of self-love towards our bodies rather than a place of hate or discontent. One crucial step in promoting healthy lifestyles is to simply admit that coffee without sugar is better than coffee with it. When we do that, we can acquire a taste for black coffee, or coffee with just a bit of creamer and cut out at least of unnecessary source of sugar in our diets.
Pokemon does support animal cruelty

Pokemon does support animal cruelty, mainly in the form of shaping how children view animals. Your first argument is that Pokemon is a game and not real life, however often children have many problems distinguishing reality and television. In a study of first grade children, it was found that children did not view television as a separate world. (Van Evra, 1984). This means that children will not understand that Pokemon is just a game or television show and may mimic behavior. You're correct saying Pokemon resemble real animals, and this will lead to children not being able to tell the difference. A common Pokemon, Pidgey is identical to a typical bird. Even the names are identical, another bird Pokemon, Spearow closely resembles a sparrow. Rattata looks like a typical rat and the list goes on. In the game children are taught to put these Pokemon against each other in battle. In both the games and television show the violence is not hidden. Moves such as "Mega Punch" and "Hyper Fang" clearly illustrate a physical action that a child can understand and attempt to make their animals or pets repeat. Additionally, the Pokemon are able to "take" these attacks and this will teach children that animals can withstand abuse. The trainers let it happen and encourage their Pokemon to attack and keep going teaching children to do the same. Your argument that in the game Pokemon can be healed with potions or Pokemon centers and only faint is actually a con. This will lead children to the false impression that no matter how much abuse their animal takes it can be "healed". This is not the case. The problem only becomes worse when analyzing how aggressive behavior stays with an individual throughout their lifetime. Children who were aggressive when they were 8 years old were found to still be aggressive at age 30 (Huesman, 1984). Children will learn this aggressive behavior to animals and continue to display these characteristics into adulthood. My final point, is that young viewers will repeat actions they see. The infamous Bobo the Doll experiment is a good example of this. Young viewers who saw adults treating a doll violently repeated the actions towards the doll. Those who saw the doll treated kindly, actually did treat the doll kindly. Much more research has built on this original experiment (Heath, 1986). In summation children are heavily influenced by what they see, and Pokemon displays violence and cruelty towards mythological creatures that closely resemble animals. Children can't separate reality from Pokemon and may carry these tendencies into adulthood, leading to animal cruelty. Sources http://books.google.ca... http://www.rcgd.isr.umich.edu... http://www.ingentaconnect.com...
Pokemon does support animal cruelty

So as you've probably seen PETA and their violent Pokemon game that they created which shows how Pokemon supports animal creulty, they were very wrong in that argument. Here's why. First off it's a game not real life and in it you battle other Pokemon or animals to make them faint or so. They can be healed at Pokemon centers and used potions on to heal. But Pokemon are not necessarily animals rather they are mythological creatures. Pokemon was founded upon the base of the creator and the idea behind it was the creator caught bugs as a child and watched them very carefully and saw what they did if they were put in the same confinement. Although many Pokemon resemble real creatures the designs of them look very different then what they actually are. And the Pokemon don't die in battle rather the fact they supposedly die due to ate which you can see in Lavender Town in the original games Pokemon Blue and Pokemon Red. Although some theories have risen such as Gary or Blue's Raticate where it supposedly died after a fight on the SS Anne and wasn't healed on time. So Gary or Blue went to the Pokemon Tower to make it's grave or bury it and stayed there to battle you again. So it may seem true he could have found out about the storage system where he could just store all of his Pokemon and stored his Raticate cause it didn't perform well enough. So I hope you see that Pokemon does not support animal cruelty.
Pokemon does support animal cruelty

So you've failed to bring up the Pokemon Amie topic. And also there are other things in Pokemon such as contests which simulate completions that animals have in real life and there is also PokeWood studios in Black and White 2 where trainers can dress up and film movies with their Pokemon. Also there's many Pokemon spin off games that further support the trainers and bonds with their Pokemon showing they love and care for them. Games like Pokemon Channel and Pokemon Ranch are where you take care with your little creatures and have fun with them and play with them. Further more there are also lots of other games like Pokemon Snap where you study and take pictures of the fascinating mythological creatures called Pokemon. And look what PETA did with their spinoff of the game. They purposely made Pokemon look bad with out bringing in any of the details where Pokemon is good and just said trainers yap at their Pokemon who don't want to battle. It is said they do enjoy battling. Also you only brought up one incident of Pokemon actually supporting it where a few kids were hurting each other as if they were characters in the show whereas there are many other incidents of other shows encouraging animal creulty. Pokemon does not support animal creulty and I hope all the readers and you have come to realize the fact that it doesn't. Sources: http://biancagames.com... http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... http://sapphirescribbles.wordpress.com...
Pokemon does support animal cruelty

I never said I'd rather have Pokemon dead however that would be more beneficial for helping children understand the consequences of animal abuse. I understand that there are Pokemon such as the ones you mentioned that don't resemble real animals, but there still are animals that do. It's the Pokemon that do (Pidgey, Rattata, Pikachu, Spearow, Butterfree, Beedrill, Squirtle) that emulate animal cruelty. The studies I presented are not Pokemon specific but do show that children struggle to separate reality and television and also like to imitate what they see. You have presented no evidence declaring the contrary. As for Pokemon related incidents, there were several in Turkey, of children hurting themselves thinking they were characters from the show. This does not prove animal cruelty but shows that children can have difficulties understanding Pokemon as a show and not real life. The show supports bonding with Pokemon, however the bond is built by the trainer supporting their Pokemon through the abuse. If trainers truly loved their Pokemon and were compassionate for them they wouldn't put them through battle where they clearly experience pain. Pokemon may "enjoy" battling in the show but this doesn't transfer to real life animals. I imagine you would not recommend people bond with their pets by putting them in cage matches. It doesn't matter how much training and hard work you go through with your dog you should not have your dog fight against others. Teaching children about hard work and dedication is irrelevant to the argument, this about influence of animal cruelty, not positive vs. negative effects. Your refutation saying that everyone you talked to is problematic, as if they ever did think of replicating it with animals they probably would not admit that to you and you probably have a low sample size, only testing people from where you live. If you have any academic papers that are peer reviewed to defend your position please present them. Finally, there are moves that are unrealistic but again they do not take away from the ones that can easily be replicated.
Pokemon does support animal cruelty

Alright so you said you'd rather have Pokemon be deemed dead after battling rather then simply healed? And also there are lots of other Pokemon besides pidgey like Ditto or Muk that are inanimate objects that are not resembled to animals rather than Pokemon that are. Also, you stated that children can't tell the difference between both worlds and replicate things but, do you have evidence of them replicating Pokemon? On to my points, firstly it is stated that Pokemon like to battle and share bonds with their trainers such as in the anime and Ash and his little Pikachu are the main standpoints of the TV show and it shows how they bond and everything. Also, Pokemon rewards people for hard work and dedication. It teaches kids to never give up and follow your dreams as the Pokemon master. When you complete the game in the hall of fame it shows your hard work and dedication and that it all paid off and the bonds you have with your Pokemon. And my final point is Pokemon encourages bonds with your Pokemon like the recent addition with the new X and Y games called Pokemon Amie. And in Pokemon Amie you get to bond and play with your little Pokemon so they like you and perform better. Some Pokemon even evolve through it and getting lots of affection. Now I'd like to end with a few refutations. Basically everyone that I talk to that plays Pokemon never thought of messing with animals to replicate it. Although hyper fang seems like a real life move there are so many other moves like trick room or dark pulse that could never be replicated. So as you see Pokemon encourages people to bond with animals rather then attacking them.