BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vegetarinism

"Vegetarian's get protein from nuts and soy" Vegetarians don't only get protein from nuts and soy. And if its bad to eat soy alot then they could just eat nuts. I'm pretty sure that nuts don't have soy in them. Here is ten reasons why soy is good for you. 1) Soy foods and Diabetes May slow absorption of glucose into the bloodstream. May also protect against damaging effects of glucose-induced oxidation, common in people with diabetes. 2) Soy foods and Reduced Cancer Risk Rich in phytochemicals (plant-chemicals). While not nutrients, may be important for overall health and in particular, for reducing risk of cancer. 3) Soy foods and Osteoporosis Soy protein helps conserve body calcium better than that of animal protein. Compounds in soy called isoflavones may simultaneously increase bone formation while decreasing bone breakdown. 4) Soy foods and Heart Disease Soybeans are extremely low in saturated fat and free of cholesterol. Consuming 25 grams of soy protein daily has shown to lower blood cholesterol. Beyond cholesterol reduction, soy foods may favorably affect other risk factors for heart disease (i.e, makes arteries more flexible). Therefore, soy may be helpful for everyone, not just those with high cholesterol. 5) Soy foods and Menopause May play a role in regulating menopausal symptoms like hot flashes and night sweats. Asian women, regular consumers of soy, do not experience the unpleasant symptoms of menopause; soy may be the reason. 6) Soy foods and Breast Cancer Animal studies have found that adding soy to the diet reduces the number of breast tumors by 25 to 50 percent. Therefore, becoming a regular soy consumer early in life may be particularly important. 7) Soy foods Meet Protein Needs Soy protein is a complete protein. It is equal in quality to animal proteins, such as that found in milk and meat. Soy has been recognized as such in the new USDA food guidelines. 8) Soy foods and Kidney Health Evidence shows the type of protein in soy foods does not affect the kidneys in the same way animal proteins do. Soy protein does not cause the kidneys to work as hard as they must to break down animal protein. In susceptible individuals, substituting soy protein for animal protein may reduce the risk of developing kidney disease. 9) Soy foods and Prostate Cancer Studies indicate soy components may delay onset of tumor growth and decrease size of tumors present. As little as one serving of soy foods a day (ex: one cup soy milk or 1/2 cup tofu) may be enough to reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. 10) Soy foods as Part of a Healthy Diet Making soy a part of the diet is one of the best defenses against disease. Source:http://www.soycooking.com... Also I know lots of people think that PETA is not true and exaggerates so please go to http://www.slaughterhousecam.com... and watch the videos.
Vegetarinism

Yes, your correct Smarticles, vegetables ARE washed before they're put on the shelves at your supper market. What I was bringing to your attention, is that the pesticides effect the ANIMALS in a negative way, that live around the veggie patch. You said: < > So, you realize that pesticides on vegetables are effecting animals. Is this ecceptable to you? So basically, your argument is now not against treating animals with respect, and keep them healthy and alive, it's now a health issue for humans? There has been no solid facts that vegetarian's are healthier, and they DO NOT live longer than they're meat eating counter parts. AKA, everyone else that eats' what are body's naturaly need. The fat's and proteins in animals have already been refined, broken down, and are healthier for us to use for nourishment for ourselves. < > Good for you! Thinking about way's to better our world is wonderful! You have again NEGLECTED to address my saying that animals intended to be eaten CAN, and usually DO get treated with respect. Perhaps, you should write these companies, and do research to endorse the companies that have proven to use tactics that make you feel comfortable. Inform people who eat meat, which treat they're animals according to the law's, and practices America wants they're companies to abide by. So that we can all support the well being of animals. This, does not mean that we should all stop eating meat though. < > Yes, Smarticles there are, indeed a use for vegetables. For us to eat them. Just because you eat meat, doesn't mean you can't eat every tasty veggie under the sun! Which proves another point, why are all these animals on earth? Don't you think they have a little bit to do with being food? Come on, they're for more than being pets.<< "So it is NATURAL for us to eat meat?" It is natural for us to eat meat but it is also "natural" for us to eat vegetables and fruit. There is nothing wrong with eating these. >> Again, I never stated we shouldn't eat vegetables, Smarticles. < My point exactly Smarticles. In every round I have said this. So this helps your case in what way? I have stated that animals can, and DO get treated with respect and care, intended to be eaten. Expecting EVERYONE on earth to be a vegetarian is ridiculous. If you have issue's with something going on, try and fix it! If you think the way that yarn is made is horrible, don't try and get everyone to stop wearing sweaters, fix the way the yarn is made. Okay, strange example, but hopefully you get my point. Nobody should feel bad eating meat. It's healthy for you, and mostly animals are treated well. It would be very cost, and time inefficient to sit around torturing animals all day. Don't be lead to believe that every, or ever most companies do this.
Disregarding correct spelling and grammar while typing on a computer is a bad habit.

There is no doubt that your argument makes is a lot more logical in context, and holding people to basic grammar and spelling is less fascist then the semicolons that Marcuse critiques. I'll make a personal point as well. I go to a good high school, and am overall a very good english student, I am also somewhat well read. Despite this, I have to use a spell check on every sentence I type, due to a learning disability, I virtually can not spell. What this means is your act of holding people to even basic spelling online turns a basic activity like AIM into a production for a large potion of people for whom spelling is next to impossible. For something like this, a formal debate, I have no issue correcting and even looking up words on google before submitting arguments, but in a more relaxed context such as talking to friends I often write things phonetically. Making grammar a standard by which to evaluate people is not accurate and limits those trying to make their ideas known. Also, there is no impact to your argument in the end. Even a risk of limiting peoples ability to communicate will outweigh the annoyance you feel when you see the english language butchered. When you see the word "like" spelled "lyke" it may piss you off, but I have no doubt you know what it means. Your gripe ends up being a pet peeve and little more. Even if the person in question is trying to type faster rather then carefully in a world where you can still understand him/her the increased speed will, in the end be the bigger impact. There is more to gain from conveying messages more quickly then is lost when one is pissed off by misspellings. Also holding people to any level of grammar legitimizes the true grammar nazis who impose those things that I have defined as fascist. You concede, or rather agree that holding people to these standards is bad, and even that it is better to allow poor grammar. In a world where the extreme levels of grammar are bad, then it is best to strike against grammar in general by allowing internet vernacular rather then criticizing it. In a world where grammar is bad, internet vernacular is the radical action against grammar. This is the Zizekian (or Lacanian) concept of striking against oneself and in thus breaking down the hegemonic ideological ordinates. This is Zizek in 2000. (I forgot which article it is, I'll find it if need be, but its not in the specific context of grammar.)
Disregarding correct spelling and grammar while typing on a computer is a bad habit.

Touchï¿½ Lacan. I can see your point, and I agree that it is unfair to set standards for a worldwide venue like the internet. But, and I should have made this more clear, my subject matter is people who I have met in real life and who I know are fully capable of using correct grammar and spelling. It is these people that make me angry. The people who have gotten an education and know how to correctly communicate with another human in a way that doesn't insert the word "like" into every third spacing are the ones who should be thinking of their disregard for grammar as a bad habit. I absolutely respect your rebuttal, for I have never thought of grammar in a way as the one you put it. I will definitely read Marcuse.
Disregarding correct spelling and grammar while typing on a computer is a bad habit.

Grammar is fascist and authoritarian. In the case of life in general being a "grammar nazi" is more then just a term, it's a truth. Grammar is something one leans through rather complex education in a difficult language and many of the rules are very arbitrary and difficult to understand. What this means is simply that few retain what they have learned about complex grammar notions as soon as they no longer need to know them for school. In a world of vast inequality, the internet is becoming the great equalizer. It's a place were anyone from blue color workers to CEOs can have discussions on an equal plane, and all can have their views listened to no matter their place in life. Holding everyone to grammar standards perpetuates class difference in that those who enjoy the pleasure of having a job that requires them to write formalized documents rather then doing something less intellectually stimulating will gain the advantage, even in the equalizing plane of the internet. Read Marcuse.
Disregarding correct spelling and grammar while typing on a computer is a bad habit.

I'm going to make this a simple opening statement. It simply ticks me off when people do not use correct grammar or spelling when writing messages on the computer. I can stand the smiley faces or whatever, but I just don't see any reason to not use correct spelling and grammar. It just makes me feel like the person talking to me doesn't give a crap enough to add that extra period. I mean, is it really that hard to look and see that "tahnks" should really be spelled "thanks"? People should just slow down enough so as to communicate with the slightest amount of sophistication.
The West (as a concept)

My opponent rightly asserts that the idea of the west originally referred only to western Europe, and it was only after the process of colonization that it was expanded to other areas, which are not necessarily located in the western part of the world, so, it's safe to assume that the west is not defined by mere geographic position. However, pro fails to define what made Western Europe western in the first place. She argues that some colonized lands became western simply because they achieved a majority of English speaking and British descendent population, but if being British or speaking English is what makes you western, then there is no reason to consider anything other than the British isles as western in Western Europe. Pro doesn't provide any characteristic present in both the British isles (and by extension, its former colonies of British majority) and in the rest of Western Europe that allows us to assume, without any doubt, that they belong to one single group called "the West", while all other societies, lacking such characteristic, can't possibly be western. Pro also argues that countries colonized by Spain and Portugal can't be considered western because in some cases, the Iberian Peninsula isn't included as part of Western Europe. There are two major fallacies in this argument, first is the fact that pro is using an argument fundamentally based in geographic factors, even though we both agree that geography does not define the concept of the west. Besides, pro comes as far as to agree that the exclusion of Iberian countries from Western Europe isn't a consensus, and that the concept of Western Europe itself, and by extension, the West, "is not fixed, but changes by context" (in pro's own words). This can be highlighted by the fact that her own source (1)(2) arbitrarily includes Andorra, which is part of the Iberian Peninsula, in Western Europe. All of this is an strong argument to my side, once my whole intention in this debate is to prove that the idea of the West can't be objectively defined, and pro has just conceded by noticing that the West is a fundamentally subjective idea. (1) . http://eurovoc.europa.eu......(2) . http://eurovoc.europa.eu...;
The West (as a concept)

Thank you to Con for this debate. I've heard this complaint about "the West" a few times in real life lately and so it will be good to clear up the issue once and for all."The West" originally referred to Western Europe, but after the age of European colonization, the idea was extended to include the countries colonized by Western Europe, where the the colonizers achieved and maintained a racial majority and cultural control. For instance, Australia and New Zealand were colonized by Great Britain. English became the dominant language, and the majority of citizens are British descendants. Therefore, Australia and New Zealand are part of "the West" even though they are physically closer to Asia than Europe. The same can be said for the USA and Canada.A lot of countries were colonized, but the invaders never achieved a population majority - India is a good example of this, and Indonesia. These countries are therefore not Western.There are no French, Belgian, Dutch or German colonies where the invaders replaced the original population to the extent that the new culture could be called Western, as far as I know.For instance, although Algeria was occupied by the French for over a century, nowadays 99% of the population is ethnically Arab-Berber. (1) South Africa was colonized for a long time by the Dutch and the British, but racially the population has always maintained an African majority (2), and so South Africa is not part of "the West".The most notable non-European countries that are counted as "western" are all English speaking.The West and Latin AmericaI think that disagreement about definitions of "the West" comes about in relation to Latin America.If Spain and Portugal are part of Western Europe, then according to my definition above, most of Central and South America should be counted as Western, and they often aren't. Many countries in Latin America - such as Bolivia (3) - do not show a clear European cultural dominance, and so they wouldn't be counted as Western anyway. However, in others, notably Argentina (4), the original population was wiped out almost as completely as it was in countries like the USA and Australia. However, Spain and Portugal are not always included in definitions Western Europe. For instance, Eurovoc does not include them in its definition of Western Europe (5), but rather in Southern Europe (6). When I say not always, of course, they are sometimes included in the term Western Europe (for example, on this WTO report (7)). Therefore, I think that the term "western europe" is not fixed, but changes by context.Similarly, I have sometimes heard people refer to South America as part of "the West". This too changes by context.SummaryWhen Western Europe is defined along the lines set out in Eurovoc (5), then "the West" includes Western Europe and all colonies and ex-colonies of Western Europe where a clear cultural and racial majority was maintained by the European occupiers.(1) https://www.cia.gov...;(2) https://www.cia.gov...;(3) https://www.cia.gov...(4) https://www.cia.gov...(5) http://eurovoc.europa.eu...(6) http://eurovoc.europa.eu...(7) http://www.wto.org...
The West (as a concept)

In this debate, I intend to challenge the widespread belief in the existence of something called "western world", which comprises, exclusively, the nations of the western half of Europe, plus the Anglo-Saxon part of the Americas and Oceania.I want to prove that there isn't a single element that can define the west while excluding all the rest of the world as a whole.Since my intention is to disprove the definition of the west, I'll let my opponent provide such definition which in turn will be challenged by me.I hope to provide an entertaining debate, that hopefully will instigate a broader discussion on this subject.
The Bryan Mullins Logic:Churches Slaughter Children for not believing in christmas + military action

Hello, its nice to meet you! Well, even if they do that, but traumatizing our kids to not believe in christmas is not right, because kids are just kids, they don't need to know the truth, because their stupid. Its unbelievable when I see a child turn from a normal kid to an evil one. TRUTH IS EVIL donald trump is an idiot why does he care, he's not our president! the song makes me so mad at society, because they know the truth so no they shouldn't be bombed even though I lack explanation.
The Bryan Mullins Logic:Churches Slaughter Children for not believing in christmas + military action

Every church in America should be bombed because according to the fact that 56,000,000 people die every year, 19% of children since 1998 have been senselessly slaughtered for not believing in Christmas. If it's about the lives and safety of America's children, Every church in America should be bombed. If 19% percent of children in America have been senselessly slaughtered, Every church in America should be bombed. If not believing in Christmas gets you slaughtered, Every church in America should be bombed and Christmas should be banned because Children should have a right to have his or her own beliefs and feelings than others. If you, a parent, pastor, priest, or a church-goer tells your child "You should be ashamed of yourself" you are a bad influence in their life, also you are against their will. If you don't allow your child to have his or her feelings or beliefs, you are against the child's will. There should be some military action stopping the 2,642 children being slaughtered every single day. Mission: Bryan Mullins's Promise for American Atheism and America's Children Time Span: 10 days Number of Military Missile Planes needed: 300 Number of Missiles per Plane: 1,000 Plot: First, The National Guard must declare a state of emergency and evacuate the children to their homes before The Air Force can bomb every single church in America. Then, The Air Force can take their active military action, bombing all 300,000 churches in America in a matter of 10 days. After that, Construction workers are to be ordered to build memorial buildings commemorating the thousands of children who are slaughtered for not believing in Christmas every single day. Donald Trump would declare to congress a bill to ban the practice of every single religion, religious holiday like Christmas, bibles, and any religious person on every social media network in America. Then, every American would be told to go to these memorials and cry, sing, and commemorate each and all of every sunday. Children will be honored and people would say "Thank you for trying to live for your beliefs and we salute you for trying, even though you never make it." The Transgender Lites song link:
Graffiti Art

As said in the above argument graffiti is illegal, punishable by law, and looked down upon in society if you are caught commuting such acts. However through the course of history we can see that just because something is against the law does not mean the act is unjust or bad. In Dr. Martin Luther King's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail he says "To put in terms of St. Thomas Aquanis: An unjust law is a human law not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." So a law that is preventing artists with a message, a story, a legacy to tell by putting up their art in what better a place than a wall where hundreds walk by; admire the art for what it is and appreciate it. Not being cooped inside a small area such as a private property or inside a barely visited art gallery, graffiti art needs to be free to all and to be seen by all. By making it illegal are the higher powers degrading human personality or not? The mention of the art on homes and private residence does upset me. As an artist I hold myself to a moral code, and that means not writing on private homes, cars that people use, or schools and churches. People who do this are not to be taken seriously as artist, and are looked down upon in the graffiti community. To your acknowledgement that you do like some street art ,that is great. However how much graffiti would you have seen in your life if it had not been put up illicitly? Not much I am going to guess. Without the artist back in the 70s and 80s putting up their names and pieces as much as they could over and over illegally, graffiti would have never gained popularity, and probably would be a dead medium. Those who draw penises and profanity on walls and mirrors and other things are childish, street art should be what it says, art, not childish marking scribbled on a desk. There is a difference between vandalism and art, and I hope that you can understand that.
Graffiti Art

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. Although it was never explicitly stated, I assume that the main point of this argument is to deem whether or not graffiti should be allowed. I will be arguing against this.Graffiti is, by definition, "writing or drawings scribbled, scratched, or sprayed illicitly on a wall or other surface in a public place." (1) Illicitly, of course, means illegally. This is exactly why it should not be allowed: It is vandalism, pure and simple. It is the same as keying somebody's car or carving curse words into the desk in middle school, except graffiti is almost always done on a much grander, larger scale. I hate to use such a cliché, but how would you feel if someone did it to you? How awful would it be to wake up and see vulgarities or gang signs on the side of your house for the sake of "sticking it to the man?" In some cases, this would be enough to get shot by the wrong people. To allow this anywhere would be absolutely ludicrous.On that note, I will admit that graffiti is sometimes pleasant to look at. I'd never say that graffiti can't be admirable simply in an artistic aspect. Although graffiti, by definition, is illegal, it is of course not illegal to do it on your own property. This is where street art should stay: On your own stuff, on your own house, with somebody's permission, etc. But to mark up somebody's house or the overpass is unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to go against society and get stuff done. Graffiti should not be allowed simply based on common courtesy.1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Graffiti Art

Graffiti art has been a part of urban culture dating back to the late 1960s. It is an art form that has spread through the world and gained a lot of popularity; it can be seen on clothing, backpacks, modern art galleries, and yes walls and other public places. It is illegal in most cases, and graffiti at the core typically has political messages or just expresses the artist feelings and creativity by using the alphabet, shapes, and characters in some cases. The whole purpose behind graffiti is to get your name "up" and be noticed by many, to gain fame by going against what society tells you to do, and to in a way give a metaphorical middle finger to the higher government powers at being.