BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vegetarianism is good

Thank you for setting out a plan, though I thought such guidelines were assumed, and I only expect you to follow them loosely. I will be arguing that Vegetarianism is good for moral and ethical, healthy, and environmental issues. My First Point: Vegetarianism is good, because it is moral. The causing of pain, or the ending of life on a whim, as we do not need meat to live, is deeply immoral. Some say that animals are somehow lesser than us, and this justifies our people from eating their flesh, but such a desperate claim holds no water. Would we butcher people if they were of the same mental capabilities as an animal? Or perhaps meat eaters are actually intolerant of different species. When it comes down to it, such a theory is just an attempt to justify the murder of another race of creatures, and in many ways an outdated prejudice. Society over time has changed to embrace the different. Why then condemn many races that share more than 80% of their DNA with us, and are in a way, our evolutionary cousins? There is, frankly, no way anyone can justify the ending of lives without a good reason. There is no good reason to kill animals, as humans can live without eating meat. Therefore, no one can justify the eating of meat. Now many meat eaters claim that somehow it is unhealthy not to eat meat, as one would have less iron or protein in one's diet. This could be true, but only assuming I simply removed meat from my diet. In fact, most people who give up meat in their diet are sure to make up for it in other foods, like beans, nuts, seeds and apricots, that replace needed iron and protein. People can live like this very easily, and have in parts of the world for thousands of years, as part of the culture. Not only is vegetarianism healthy, but it is also more healthy than the eating of meat. [1] Scientists have now connected the eating of pork, beef and other types of red meat, with cancer and heart disease, and recommend cutting, if not removing, meat from the diet, and meat is a major cause of food poisoning. So frankly being a vegetarian is good for one's health. Finally, the meat industry is a major source of pollution, cutting down trees for grazing space for cattle, catching fish to extinction, and breeding cows that produce methane that is harmful to the ozone layer. To support the meat industry is to support the giant business that is neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly. This is why vegetarianism is good for the environment. I hope you too understand that all of us must take a stand prejudice and cruelty, obesity and disease, and of course the destruction of our beloved world, and for these reasons, it is indeed good to be a vegetarian. Thank you, and please vote Pro! [1] http://www.time.com...
The big bang theory is a more valid reasoning of how the universe was created than creationism

1) There is a difference between hypothesis and theory. A theory is a put together set of proven hypothesis that through testing gives a logical conclusion on a topic. While a hypothesis is a suggested explanation of why it is before testing it or not testing it. For another explanation you can use this link: . http://evolution.berkeley.edu... Getting of topic about sources now: the best websites are those of . org and . edu as very reliable sources. While those of . com are not always since ANYONE can own one of those an those websites usually do not care about the content as long as they get money for advertising. Just a little rant, now back to the debate at hand. Which that source you have is also flawed since it really does not know what a theory is if it lists proof as an antonym since a theory is put together pieces of PROOF, observations, and facts. 2) 1. really nice source I love the . org This website is just speculation about why it could of. But this debate clearly states validity. Which to bring up the definition of it, look in round 2 please. Which is sound. The big bang theory is based off evidence directly relating to it instead of the twisted way the creationist are using it. Which means since creation has so much speculation about it written a long time ago, I don't bring up the year since every website I have went to has given me n good answer. But, the point is its very old, which means it came out before the new evidence. The Big bang Theory was shaped fro evidence while creation is twisting the facts around to loosely fit creation. Which in terms of validity means the Big Bang Theory is more valid than creation. You also bring about how it is so unlikely that we are here an life came about in such improbable terms. Which still doesn't prove there being a god. You could also use those facts to say multiple gods created life "because it is just so unlikely one could do this. " I'm joking of course, but it proves how creation is less valid than the Big Bang Theory. Which is the purpose of this debate. Bringing up your final point, you do need to bring up evidence since we are debating of validity also needs SOUND evidence (sound familiar? ?? Round 2) And I demise your theory because this "creator" has no proof. We cannot make it in a theory because it would make the theory less SOUND (see what I'm going for here (validity)) Finally we are not talking of just the sole creator, we are talking about the whole story. Which proves less valid than The Big Bang Theory. Conclusion: The Big Bang Theory was shaped around the evidence, while in creation, the evidence is twisted around to fit the story that came out before this proof. The purpose of this debate was to show which is more valid. While the evidence does point to the Big Bang Theory, it is more valid. Side note: I ask that people vote on this debate through the issues we brought up through validity, not what you believe is true.
The big bang theory is a more valid reasoning of how the universe was created than creationism

I ask for people reading this to have an open mind instead of sticking by what you believe before this debate and voting that way not based of of what we bring up. So I see many people argue that god COULD of created the big bang, but if we base everything off could we would get nowhere. The big bang theory is a THEORY, which really is put together pieces of evidence. Yes the big bang theory has a lot of flaws in it. But, we know so little of the universe since we have limitations. I only have to explain why the creation story is less valid than the big bang theory. As my opponent brought up the big statistical ways that earth has so little of being created. He also says god must have made this possible. But, we are here on earth correct? Which means it was from by some act. Sure its very improbable that we are here, but how probable is this "divine creator?" I pointed out a piece of evidence is the red shift in the galaxies. Which is based off of logic and fact. While god creating the earth is merely a story with no proof god exists. The Greeks had stories about how the earth is ruled by MULTIPLE gods. But, I don't see how that's less valid than there only being one god. They both have no proof while the big bang theory ATTEMPTS to explain through scientific observation how we are here. True it has a lot of flaws in it. But, once we get different new pieces of evidence we will revise it. While creation just sticks to the same story. "go" with is "magical" powers some how created all of this through the words "Let there be...." How is this even possible. If I say Let there be bacon, bacon doesn't magically appear. The earth didn't start like that either. This proves how big bang theory has more logic than creation. My opponent brings up these quotes: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." " Albert Einstein As you can see both of these are true as of right now. But being blind is worse than being "lame." In conclusion religion is blind to not accept these facts about how the universe was created an thus not following the laws of logic.
The Euro Should be Discontinued

I agree to all terms, except I might troll just a itsy bitsy bit just to lighten the mood. MY TERMS:1. If either of us troll, the argument should not be regarded as part of the actual argument and just as a lightener of the mood.2. Attacking your opponent personally is forbidden. Doing so is disrespectful. We should attack eachother's points on this debate, not eachother directly.3. Have fun. YOU MUST ACCEPT THIS ONE.Other than that, I have nothing I can think of at the moment.Ron-Paul, EURO GOING DOWN! (Buh bum tch!)
The Euro Should be Discontinued

Here's the challenge. Full Resolution: The Euro should be discontinued. BoP is on me. Definitions: The Euro: "The official currency of the European Union's (EU) member states. The euro was introduced by the EU in to the financial community in 1999 and physical euro coins and paper notes were introduced in 2002. Euros are printed and managed by the European System of Central Banks (ESCB)"[1] Should: "Must; ought"[2] Discontinue: "To put an end to; stop; terminate."[3] Rules: 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed. 3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. 4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person. Debate Structure: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro) Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (A few new arguments may be brought up, but nothing out of the blue) Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments) Sources: [1]: http://www.investopedia.com... [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Children can be a good spy

I accept my opponent's challenge. First I define the term "child" as any person who has not reached puberty. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I accept my opponent's definition of a spy with the added statement that the spy is operating incognito in a hazardous environment. My opponent has made a statement regarding the physical and mental fitness of children. While it is true that some children are physically fit for their age, it is not true that a child is physically fit for the demanding trials of any form of combat. This would present a great problem during insertion, extraction, or if anything were to go wrong. Secondly, my opponent has made a remark regarding the malleability of a child's mind. The ease with which a child's thinking can be altered is a huge drawback to undercover work. Just by pretending to side with the enemy they may lose their resolve and slowly morph their thinking toward that of their foe. For his third argument my opponent named several children's movies in which the main characters were children performing spy operations. I would like my opponent to note that Hollywood is a worse source than Wikipedia and has no place in a respectable debate. There are many reasons a child cannot make an effective operator: 1.) Children have an insufficient attention span to effectively gather intelligence in the field. The average attention span of an eight year-old is 9 minutes. After that time they begin to lose focus; such a trait is not only crippling to any operator but it can also be deadly. 2.) Children lack the physical strength necessary to effectively operate in a hostile environment. Children physically cannot be strong enough to overpower an adult. It's that simple. Prowess in hand to hand combat will not save you when the enemy can pick you up and carry you off. 3.) Children lack the prestige to get anywhere near a point of interest. You won't find a single mobster, militant, or government who will let a child anywhere near their operation. There is no way they would consider hiring the child as a bottom-dog thug, let alone hiring them to anywhere of importance or value. What good is a spy who can't make an insertion? This closes the first round. I look forward to my opponent's arguments in the next round.
Children can be a good spy

Good Morning to one and all present here. Today the topic before the house is that 'Children can be a good Spy' & I am here to propose the motion.First of all who are spies? A spy is someone who secretly gathers information from any person, organisation, state or a country.Now, speaking about children, we all know how flexible and fit they are, physically & mentally, so why can't they be good spies? Of course they can!now I know what the opposition would try to say is that "children are sensitive & there mind can be moulded in any way adults can." And here the opposition is wrong.Speaking about children's malleable minds, actually this point supports the proposition. Why? Because once the host moulds a child's mind into something, he/she'll do it by heart. Haven't you seen small children complaining to their host about anything bad done by a person in front of that child? Well most probably you have seen this. Why do they complain? Because they are taught that these things are bad and you should not do this & also u should not let that happen. And just by teaching this they follow it. & that's why once they have became a spy they cannot be attracted toward any other organisations or be a double agent. I would explain this statement further by an example. Most of you must have watched movies like spy kids and agent cody banks.And these movies shows that children can be even better spies than adults.There is one more problem with adults. And what is that?Love it is! We see that adults fall in love very easily, but children prefer to spend time with there sex. They don't even thing about girls.And now i would like to rest my case by saying that 'Yes! Children can be great spies.'
Non-Christian Religions Feel Right

Hi, great paragraph and all. I find what you say correct. My question is does their religion feel right to them? Do they really know what they believe in and it's not just their cultural or ethnic traditions? Do they know their religion is the right and true one? I'm not trying to jump to conclusions, and say Christianity is the right religion. But it makes a lot of sense. And the love of God is overwhelming in Christian faith. While as in Hinduism, they have gods like Shiva, god of destruction, and Kali, goddess of death. Reincarnation, for example, has no proof that its actually true, while Christians have had near death experiences, and have claimed to come back from Heaven. The history of Christianity's beginnins are at the time of Jesus, but, our belief is that Christianity is linked with Judaism, though they ignore Jesus, so that means that Christianity started at the time of Abraham. Well before a whole lot of religions. The words of the bible are true, but people from other religions don't read it, so they don't see the sense in Christianity. I haven't read their holy books, but I know they talk about farmers in fields in Buddhism. The difference between Christianity and other religions is that God's greatest value is not His will, but His love. And other religions believe works is the way to salvation, but Christians believe we are failures and can't do anything because of our sins, but because of Christ's sacrifice we are saved. We have free will, and we can do anything through God. What others believe, I can respect, but really, I think their religions are kind of weird and don't feel satisfying, especially on the part of their gods or god. They should really look into that and look into Christianity, because there is truly a lot they're missing out on. I'm only 13 years old, so I'm not pro at this. My opponent will have to explain to me why their religion feels right. Thank you.
Are laptops really helping us.

I know you can check your bank account online but it is not safe people can hack your computer and steal your money, and yes you can make money but then again something can come up on your computer saying pay us money and we will take this off so you pay them but it never goes away, so then what nothing your computer has a virus and you can't do anything. Also yes you can talk to people online but then again people get cyber bullied online line and either kill people or themselves and who would want that. http://www.dosomething.org... It just not right if they would have stayed off computers in the first place that never would have happened. Yes computers are good to a certain extent but other than that they are just bad Also I have used a word that is wrong I used weather I should have used whether my apologies.
Are laptops really helping us.

First off, the question is, are they helping us in our daily lives. Not if they are taking our lives away from us and or making society fat. Let me start right in. Many, many, businesses use computers for work. Businessmen can't stay at work all the time, so laptops can help them with their work while at home, on the bus, or even at McDonald's! Laptops also make it possible for people to stay in touch with relatives in other states, or countries. Have you ever been homesick while away from your parents or boyfriend/girlfriend? Well then, just jump on your laptop and you can video chat with those people! Laptops also let you track your bank account, and you can even make money on them. There is also social media websites where you can stay in touch with your friends and family, or even hear about local news, like what your best friend is having for dinner. All in all, laptops can be very beneficial to you and other people, but only if used appropriately and in moderation.
Are laptops really helping us.

I mean are they helping us in our daily lives. I think they are not helping us they are taking over our lives that is the only thing people want to do anymore is play video games and be on the computer. heck you can even order food from the computer now and have it delivered to your house without leaving the couch they are making society fat. http://www.google.com... just look at some of these pictures they even start at a young age. Computers are not good for us.
Are laptops really helping us.

On the topic of getting your bank account hacked, if you didn't have a bank account online than you would most likely put your money in an actual bank somewhere close to where you live. Now if I am not mistaken, quite a lot of people keep their money in these banks, if someone were to rob a bank like that then they wouldn't just be stealing your money, but also the money of quite a few others. You can't really be there to help protect your money either. If you keep your money in a virtual bank, then you can keep it secure much easier and from the safety of your home. It is also easier to track people online then it is in the real world. On the note of viruses, there are plenty of very good anti-virus softwares out there that can keep you safe from viruses. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ On the note of Cyber Bullying. There is also a thing called Bullying, it is when you are bullied, but not online. . http://www.bullyingstatistics.org... This type of bullying is much worse, online you can block or ignore people who are bullying you. In the real world it is much, much harder to get rid of a bully. Over the internet people can't physically harm you, they can only insult you or make fun of you verbally. In the real world people can get physically bullied, as in bruises and black eyes. Sometimes people can even get broken bones or fractures, if the bullying is bad enough.
Pick your topic

1: what i really meant First of all, i meant the abuse as in "demostic violence". If anybody else thought i meant it by "a 'bus' e", there must be something wrong with you. Since my opponent has spelled it this way, it should be counted as mispelled. Since it is mispelled, he would lose points. 2: battling So, you send out your pokemon. Your opponent sends out his. Then you do everything you can to poison, burn, paralyse, bite, cut,, etc. until the opposing pokemon "faints". If this isn't close to cock and dog fights, i don't know what is. But sure, you can just revive your pokemon at your local Pokemon Center. But what about all the wild pokemon you knock out in the wild just to get your Charmeleon to evolve into Charizard? Have you ever seen Nurse Joy running around, mouth to mouth recussitating wild Rattattas? Probably not. So, you basically kill wild pokemon. You poison pokemon, and then just leave them in the wild to get pecked apart by Spearow. That's pretty f*cked up, i would say. 3: PC And lets not forget the dreadful PC box. You catch a pokemon, but you already have 6 in your party, so it auto goes into the PC. But, after that, you don't even take care of the pokemon in it, if you catch rare ones, i bet all you do is show them to your friends. Im talking to you shiny collectors. H*ll, you don't even feed the dang pokemon, you just let them starve, crammed in a tiny box ewith 29 others that are big enough to eat them. I would say that's pretty bad, even for Gary Oak (and he knows what I'm talking, cramming his Raticate into one. Read about it for proof) I await my opponents response and rebuttals Sources: http://www.newrepublic.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Pick your topic

Alright. I believe Pokemon doesn't teach animal abuse. However, since my opponent failed to define "Abuse", I shall define it for him. But first, I define "animal" as "any type of pokemon, whether it's from the Black, Red, or White versions". I define "teach" as "to impart knowledge of or skill in; give instruction in". I define "abuse" as "A bus with the letter 'E' at the end".For an example I will use this bus: WHY POKEMON DOES NOT TEACH "A BUS E"1. Everybody--ahem--every 'mon-- takes trains in Pokemon See the image below? Yup, that's right, they're all taking the Pokemon train. Trains in no way correlate to busses, therefore Pokemon does not teach about busses that end with an "e".2. Pokemon can flyEven the land-type pokemon can fly. There is no need for flying Pokemon to take any bus, especially those that end with an "E". Therefore evidence is clearly given that Pokemon do not teach animal "a bus that ends with the letter e" Finally, the Pokemon world mostly takes place in a Gadsby-like world, except that "E"s do exist, they just aren't at ends of words.Proof, you ask? Well, Pokemon certainly has an "e", but it's not at the end of the word. Furthermore, all the main characters, as shown here: http://pokemon.wikia.com..., do NOT have names that end with "e". I stressed "mostly" because Jessie from Team Rocket has an "e" at the end of her name. How do I explain this? Team Rocket=bad. Bad=keep away from. Keep away from=opposite of teach. Thus, Pokemon teaches the opposite of animals with a bus that ends with the letter "e".I believe I have thoroughly proved that Pokemon doesn't teach animal abuse. Onto you, con!