BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Milk and other dairy products are in fact healthful and beneficial for humans

This basically summarizes my arguments and counter arguments: "Dairy foods can be high in fat and, therefore, calories. Low-fat dairy foods, such as skim milk and low-fat cottage cheese, have had most of the fat skimmed off and they can still be good choices for calorie counters. But all the good stuff, like cheese, ice cream, and butter, can be diet-busters. " "In higher fat dairy products, most of the fat is saturated fat. Diets high in saturated fats can raise your cholesterol levels and increase your risk of heart disease. " "Dairy products contain lactose, a type of milk-sugar that many people have difficulty digesting because they lack the digestive enzyme lactase. If you can't digest lactose, eating dairy products can give you a rumbley tummy or worse. Lactose intolerance affects between ten and twenty percent of the population. You are much more likely to be lactose intolerant if you are of African, Asian, or Native American heritage. Lactose-reduced dairy products or lactase tablets can allow lactose intolerant people to eat dairy with fewer difficulties. " "Although cow's milk allergies are fairly rare in adults, many babies and small children are allergic to milk, and experience symptoms including ear infections, skin rashes, and digestive problems. Avoiding dairy products can alleviate symptoms. " _________________________________________________________________________________________________ . http://nutritiondiva.quickanddirtytips.com... www. formerfatguy. com/articles/dont-drink-milk.
The chicken came before the egg.

Once upon a time, there was a man named Charles Darwin. Bored one day, he created a little theory called EVOLUTION. Darwin's theory of evolution states that species change over time via mutation and selection. Since DNA can be modified only before birth, a mutation must have taken place at conception or within an egg such that an animal similar to a chicken, but not a chicken, laid the first chicken egg. The modern chicken was believed to have descended from another closely related species of birds, the red junglefowl, but recently discovered genetic evidence suggests that the modern domestic chicken is a hybrid descendant of both the red junglefowl and the grey junglefowl. Assuming the evidence bears out, a hybrid is a compelling scenario that the chicken egg, based on the second definition, came before the chicken. Voting pro is voting against evolution. Therefore, I win by default. Thanks for your wasted time.
The chicken came before the egg.

No, chickens did not first come from the egg. The chicken or an animal related to chicken existed first. Science and Religion can both prove this. According to Darwins theory of evolution, species change through mutations. The chicken came from a bird-like animal an mutated over time. Therefore the chicken came first. If we look to theology, the chicken existed by the hand of God. God is all powerful and the bible/torah/quran and all other religious texts that mention God and his/her creation of the chicken arriving first is correct.
Has making life easier caused living to feel less alive or worth living

yet a simple response can help with my point. adversity can make anything feel worth it, yet it should not rule our entire lives. it is all well and good as I have said in may main argument about this topic. yet these challenges shouldn't be the only way to make life feel worth it. simply enjoying what you are doing can make one feel alive and simply make everything worth it. enjoying what comes to you can be simplest of ways to make sure that life is worth it in every way possible.
Has making life easier caused living to feel less alive or worth living

If I understand my opponent correctly, she is stating that the struggles of life make it more worth it when you overcome such adversities. Now there is nothing wrong with this thought process and I think it holds true in many scenarios, yet I don't think this can be applied to everything. overcoming these challenges to life is obviously a major part of our journey, yet it is not the entire things that brings to our destination. The pleasures and simple parts of life make us who we are as well. I've been through many hardships in my life yet I have also had many times off just having things easy and care free. I have thoroughly enjoyed time with my friends and family as I with loved ones, as I am sure you have too. these moments do not require hardship or adversity, yet the make life feel worth it.
Has making life easier caused living to feel less alive or worth living

Most people in life try to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible. However, those who have little trouble in their life or at least real trouble are the lesser for it. We as humans have a desire to test ourselves and to see what we can do. Adversity can help us to see who we are and what we can do. It is through our struggles that we can find happiness. We know more of who we are and can begin to handle anything that comes out way. When our life is easy it can also become hard to control our strong emotions. Little things can become big things for us. When we face struggles those little become just little things. Our emotional strength improves. Over coming adversity can also help us find purpose and meaning. Having something or someone to fight for can give us a very compelling reason to keep fighting. Even though struggles are frightening it is the fights we face in life that make us want to fight for life itself. It's the desire to build that life we want to see that keeps us going. If life is to peaceful and made to much of how we would like it to be we tend to lose purpose, become bored, and it can be difficult to find happiness. Now to much pain and struggle can begin to do us real. Harm that scares us and traumatizes that can be difficult to recover from. This is to be avoided. There is such a thing as to much adversity. However in the prober amount adversity can make us stronger and better versions of ourselves.
Has making life easier caused living to feel less alive or worth living

since format and definitions weren't specified, im going to lay them out. if your disagree with any then send me a message. R1 acceptance R2 Main arguments R3 counter arguments' R4 rebuttals and closing statements definitions adversity: adverse or unfavorable fortune or fate; a condition marked by misfortune, calamity, or distress . http://www.dictionary.com... enrich: to add greater value or significance to . http://www.dictionary.com... any specific definition you may want, add them in round 2
Has making life easier caused living to feel less alive or worth living

We often finding meaning in life through the challenges we face and the struggles we go through. Their painful but they make us feel more real and more alive. They help us have purpose and connect more with others. They help us love more and humble us in the face of an uncontrollable world. In war soldiers often create very strong bond with their comrades in arms. They are able to do that because they live in such close quarters and place their lives in each other's hands. They face great adversity together and it makes them stronger and better. With life getting more and more easier and our struggles less and less at least in the matter of survival it has taken away what we are meant to do most survive. The modern world has given us a lot but has it taken away some of that purpose and drive we feel deep inside. I think it has. I would like to debate this with an oppant that our lives would be more enriched if we had to work more to survive and had to build ourselves the things we want most. Thank you for your time.
who would win naruto (pro)or sasuke(con)

Wind and LightningActually one of these elements makes the other stronger, it probably would be wise if they avoided colliding with lightning and wind because, like you said, it would end up like the battle in The Final Valley of the Sasuke Rescue arc, which Sasuke won. If Naruto's Rasengan is stronger, however Naruto would probably overpower Sasuke, but I believe Sasuke would have good-sense to avoid using lightning against rasengan. On the other hand, Kirin's power would be magnified by Naruto's rasengan and would probably take him down a notch, though Naruto would probably avoid Kirin instead (A difficult thing to do considering how fast the attack is). Like I said before, if he used a wind shield it would probably only make the attack more damaging.Chidori! The Chidori Spear would be effective enough if it were used to surprise Naruto; it was fast enough to pierce Danzo and bisect Madara in his jinchuriki form. Kirin is basically lightning but stronger, way stronger. Even if Zetsu was exaggerating, lightning is pretty fast. With Yin Release, the scale of Chidori Senbon would be enough to decimate, if not completely remove Naruto's clones. Chidori Current is pretty fast and he can channel it through the ground. If Naruto were to approach Sasuke on foot, the current would stop Naruto in his tracks. If Naruto were to attack him from above, a simple dodge would do.
who would win naruto (pro)or sasuke(con)

4) I meant to say naruto not maturity.. auto correct damnnn it ....... . . 1)naruto main element is wind And guess What it wins lighting.. However Kirin may be too fast though.. buy keep in mind that He have wind, maybe He will have a wind shield? who knows.... 2)The spear And be dodged... btw. 3)We have no idea if zetsu is exaggerating anot. 4)Senbon won't really help If naruto have So many clones 5)Current won't affect naruto as long as He have his wind ready... 6)The gift for naruto is way better than the gift for sasuke... Peeace
who would win naruto (pro)or sasuke(con)

Sasuke's ocular powerActually, a few of his most powerful attacks do not require a lot of Sasuke's chakra, such as Kirin. Kirin is a lightning-style jutsu, used by Amataresu, which causes cloudiness and rain. This jutsu was shown in Sasuke's battle against Itachi. Zetsu stated that Kirin can hit an opponent in 1/10000000 of a second, though it can only be used once per battle due to the sky being completely cleared after using the jutsu. This means that having to recharge might not necessarily be a problem for Sasuke, except maybe in a later stage in the fight. Though, with Sasuke's good judgement and tactical skills, he might be the one wearing Naruto out. Sharingan and TaijutsuWhile there is a chance that neither of them will use taijutsu in the beginning of the fight, Sasuke would most likely stop the fight from going any further if taijutsu is used. Even, if he only copies fighting styles, it doesn't mean it won't be as good as the original. Chidori vs RasenganSasuke can manipulate his chidori into other forms, making them more utile for different situations. Kirin- Extremely fast and penetrative, ideal for breaking armour. Senbon- Taking out multiple targets at once. Spear- Sasuke can manipulate chidori into the shape of a spear which can extend pretty far away, this is useful for stabbing the target from far away. Current- Sasuke can channel electricity through his body and around him, taking Naruto by surprise. Yin Release- Making Sasuke's chidori unbelievably powerful- so powerful, in fact, that he was able to combat Madara in his 10-tails form and cutting Madara in half! While I agree that Rasengan is stronger than most of Sasuke's lightning-based attacks, except Kirin- no question- they are not fast enough to hit Sasuke before he can dodge it. Naruto would have to get really close and catch Sasuke off-guard, which I highly doubt would happen given his understanding of Naruto's rasengan, and his intelligence. Pro's fourth pointI don't understand what your point is, sozChakra natureEarth beats fire, but lightning beats earth.
who would win naruto (pro)or sasuke(con)

1) sasuke ocular power might not be limited, that have not been stated however it is shown that the power takes time to recharge in order to use it again. He might just use it And while recharging get beaten by naruto. 2)I don't think taijutsu will be used in the fight really, even if they use it,I don't think sasuke can beat him due to the fact that He only copies power ,not overpowering them. Hence, taijutsu won't do any good. 3)I don't think that it have been shown of any new chidori, only stronger by abit. However naruto uses strength from the tail beast And combined with rasengan. Even If sasukes chidori improved that much, I assume it will not be stronger , I'm not saying it's impossible , But it's unlikely. Being on the same level might be possible and even So it will just be a repeat What happened at the end of their kids part... 4) it's not really relevant But why would the they make sasuke stronger than maturity since his the main character. 5) this night not be entirely true. But it circulates around that naruto will soon get earth style, earth counters fire And hence fire style And amertarasu. I would say it might not have a winner if they fight. Since they counter each other. I have clarify some of your points con. What's next
who would win naruto (pro)or sasuke(con)

Pro claims that Sasuke's ocular powers are "limited" and his Susanoo would be broken by Rasengan. Kaguya has not yet been defeated, so we don't know yet that he is "like God". Mind you, that's quite an exaggeration. You might not agree, but I don't think it's likely that Sasuke would not have to use Susanoo, unless Naruto uses large long-range attacks. With his Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan, gifted to him by his older brother Itachi and his rinnegan gifted to him by the Sage of the Six Paths, Sasuke is able to predict attacks and prevent him with his newly-enhanced ocular powers. For example, in the battle with Madara in his Sage form, we discover that Sasuke is able to see Madara's shadows which indicate where he is and where he was to help him predict where Madara will move. He can also keep track of his opponents so shadow clones would be almost useless in tricking Sasuke. You can read it it in the Infinite Tsukuyomi arc of the manga (It got me excited). You should also consider Naruto having only mastered two jutsus and one fighting style- Shadow Clone, Rasengan and Frog Kata. Sasuke on the other hand, is capable of: Genjutsu- illusions such as izanami and izanagi; I believe there is a possibility that Sasuke can even be capable of hypnosis. Ninjutsu- Fire Style attacks (Amaterasu being the most powerful) and Lightning Style attacks, such as Chidori, which he improved by changing its chakra shape. Taijutsu- Sasuke can copy people's styles, such as Rock Lee's Leaf Style, in a shorter period of time than any other shinobi could train in. By understanding Naruto's taijutsu, attacks would be easier to predict. If I list Sasuke's impressive feats, they would outweigh Naruto's. But, they have no relevance to their strength considering how powerful the two have become. Though, Sasuke did cut Madara IN HALF.Sorry, Pro. You'll need to do more to convince me.
who would win naruto (pro)or sasuke(con)

1) naruto can chop off kaguya hands easily...... And she's the best Villian So far... if He can beat the mother of chakra, it means He like god.... 2) sasuke have only rinnegan And the powers are limited... I don't think that ems or sasuno will help him much as the new rasengans recently are So good. Susano can be broken And it's likely to break by the rasengans.. I think I won't say anymore because those two points are enough to prove that naruto is much stronger than sasuke.... PEACE
You cannot be gay and be a christian

haha, that's not being gay. With that definition probably every guy on the planet is gay, at least at some point in time. Being gay is far more then being mere homosexual, Gay is a culture. They even have their own rainbow flag to identify them as a culture. Sure, this culture is run entirely by homosexuals, but it's certainly beyond homosexuality . Look,this male vessel that I inhabit (my flesh, my body, or whatever you want to call it) can get sexually turned on with other men, especially hot ones. I've never had sex with another man, but that doesn't mean I've never had fantasies of such. Will I ever partake in such iniquities? I hope not. Because to me, being gay is extremely selfish. By your definition of homosexuality, yes I'm technically a homosexual to some degree. But I'm not Gay. To me gay is a culture, and homosexuality (as far as fantasies) is a norm in the young male sex drive.
You cannot be gay and be a christian

Here is how it works. Someone who is Christian can be gay. Gay "a homosexual, especially a man." Homosexual "a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex." Christian "a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings." Anyone can become Christian. Nobody can stop being homosexual. People can be sexually attracted to their own sex, but they may still become Christian because everyone is invited to come to Christ. What if you could not become Christian because you are what you are? It would not be fair. Sources: Google.com
Daenerys Targaryen should sit on the iron throne.

I first would like to say that I am a Daenerys fan and would absolutely not mind seeing her on the Iron Throne, but you are absolutely wrong that she has any legal or other kind of right to the Iron Throne. First off, people had names long before the Targs came around. In fact, the Targaryens had only been on the throne for a little less than 300 years before the events of A Game of Thrones. Before that, Westeros was divided into 9 different kingdoms with 9 different rulers. When Aegon the Conqueror won pretty much all of Westeros and forged the Iron Throne, he started the first true united kingdom Westeros had seen. With that, his family had a legal right to the throne. But, he only had that right because he first established his own right to rule through the only true legitimate means: right of conquest. Because of right of conquest, Aegon Targaryen ascended the Iron Throne and became the legal King of the 8 realms (Dorne didn't become part of the Kingdom until later). But in Robert's Rebellion, Robert Baratheon took the throne through right of conquest. Because he took it the same way as Aegon and the same way as every first King in history did, he became the legal king of Westeros and his children were the legal inheritors of his kingdom. After Robert's rebellion, Daenerys Targaryen has no legal right to the throne. Of course, she could take it by right of conquest, but her inheritance of the throne is non existent.
All knowledge is founded on faith - 2

My opponent attempts to dismiss my argument by saying that there has to be justification for qualia in order for the JTB theory to throw away the regress problem (in the foundationalist case). The answer for this comes quite simply from Philosopher Bertrand Russell. He uses the qualia of "pain" in his example. "Roughly the view is that what justifies S in believing that he is in pain when he does is the fact that S is directly and immediately acquainted with his pain in a way in which he is not directly and immediately acquainted with any contingent facts about Caesar, the physical world, the future, and so on. On a correspondence conception of truth, one might add that to be fully justified in believing a proposition to be true one must be acquainted not only with the fact that makes the proposition true but the relation of correspondence that holds between the proposition and the fact." Justification for a knowledge claim is usually needed because we do not have direct relation to that claim - thus needing external evidence in order to justify it. What is different about qualia, and what qualifies them as foundational beliefs to build other beliefs from, is that they have a direct relation to us that we can not shake, we know of their truth as soon as they are felt, seen, touched, etc. My opponent raises that the definition of material evidence should be as follows, "evidence which conduces to the proof or disproof of a relevant hypothesis." But, as you can see, reader, that is exactly what experience/direct observation/qualia is. It is, in itself, completely related to our consciousness, and thus is in itself a brute fact - un-needing of external justification. Thus, this is why you do not need any faith to believe qualia that is presented - because it is, as Philosopher Descartes would say, a clear and distinct perception. In conclusion, qualia are justified because they directly relate to the observer in that the observer does not need to look for outside justification in order to relate himself to the piece of "evidence." This makes the qualia perfect material evidence, because the statement "it seems to be like pain" is very much immune to skeptical hypothesis and is occupied by much justification of it's nature by our own relation to it. As I have described above, it is direct material proof, because it is a JTB, and thus can be used as the base unit for all knowledge. All knowledge is not founded on faith. I thank KRF for this brilliant and exciting debate! I hope we can do another one in the future : ) Regards, Vi Sources: 1. Russell, Bertrand. 1910-11. "Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description." The Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 11: 209-32. 2. http://plato.stanford.edu...