BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
humans should endeavour to become a vegan species

thank you for embarking on this discussion with me. human beings have flourished on earth in vast terrains and we still do with differing food type availability. the amazon diet is very different to the eskimo diet and yet all the varying human communities omni/carnivores and herbivores have all flourished healthily whilst maintaining fundamentally differnt diets. the sophisticated library of terms that modern science uses to explain our nutritional needs are just elements of raw data that is only relevant to the persons in which the effects were observed. nutrition as a system is totally interwoven into our other bodily systems and so it is actually very incomplete to deduce that children who dont drink milk will have weaker bones or a calcium shortage. the reality of the situation as is the case with most matters is the influence of financial profit. scientists ultimately only manipulate data to make it appear favourable to the goals of the organisations that fund their 'science' if a scientist was to point out that cows milk has been shown to be incompatible with the human stomache, the dairy industry would ensure that 100 other scientists rebutt or 'reinterpret' the undesirable science. large parts of indian civilisations up until the present have remained vegan for 1000s of years without any scientifically noticeable calcium deficient conditions incidentally these same people have also been reported to not spending their whole lives grazing on their vegetable curries to keep their nutritional standards in line with their omnivore brethren indeed plant life is also living. and its possible that plants feel just as much pain by our disturbing their natural life cycle. however, realistically lets start by protecting the cows and hens whose pain we can clearly perceive......then we can go searching for carrots' tears and emotions. ----------------------- apologies for any incoherent parts...........or any missing formalities..............im new to this but keen to improviing ------------------
humans should endeavour to become a vegan species

I will be making the argument that we has humans should not ender to become a vegetarian species, that we should remain omnivores. Just like eating too much meat eating only vegetables is unhealthy. You need meat for the following: B12 Calcium Iron Zinc EPA & DHA http://chriskresser.com... While it is true that you can find vegetables with these items the human body does not take them in properly from vegetables, this is why most vegetarian animals spend most of their day eating. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. This disregards that the rainforest is being clear cut in part to make farm land. What about all the living plant creatures? How is this not harming them? This argument to me sounds like, “We should care about all forms of life. Well, other than them plants. Who cares about them?” http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... All of my opponents other arguments disregard that there are other options to carnivorous eating than live stock. It is less wasteful if you raise insects on the waste from farms. This turns that waste into soil. Then we could eat the insects.
humans should endeavour to become a vegan species

the act of eating other animals and their by-products for our sustenance is a behaviour that we inherited from our ancestors who were living in a different world to our world today ultimately as a species, we have highly adaptable digestive systems and our bodies have the mechanisms to extract the nutrients they need from both animal and plant foods. however the reason why we should embrace veganism is due to the fact that our current environment and society has enabled us to produce ample supplies of plant foodstuffs without having the need turn to animal foods in desperation and hence allowing ourselves to be freed from the burden of continuing to harm our fellow living creatures. the change will have to be a gradual one, but at least we will be able to stop rationalising this carnivorous behaviour by basing it on adulterated scientific and philosophical reasonings, and we will be able to transcend to a level beyond the bounds of the burdened state of instinctual carnivorism like the rest of the animal kingdom. it may have been a neccessity in the history of our species, however this is no longer the case, and we should unite in our determination to end this cruel exploitation of our fellow animal lifeforms. i will emphasise that this includes the end to dairy and egg produce also which are a huge part of our mistreatment of animals. also we should strive to end all aspects of our cruelty which includes animal driven transport and unnecessary animal skinned clothing.
The Bible makes no sense!!!

You are ignoring the fact that there are many contradictions in the bible. For example, "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham," (GEN 22:1) contradicts with "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13) How can an omnipotent god make so many mistakes in his book? Finally, whether I win or lose this debate, I'd like to just state that I am 13 years old and this is my first debate.
The Bible makes no sense!!!

My opponent seems to wish to argue something different to the resolution. I would love to mount a full response, however due to limited space I must be terse.Plainly put, whether God does or does not exist is irrelevant to if the Bible makes sense or not. Let's have a syllogism.Let's have a syllogismMatthew 4:2 says that after 40 days of fasting, Jesus was hungry.A) If any part of something makes sense, it cannot make no senseB) Matthew 4:2 makes senseTherefore) The Bible does not make no sense
The Bible makes no sense!!!

However, your holy book also sates that the Christian god is all powerful. However, if your god cannot destroy himself, he is not omnipotent. If he can do so, then he still isn't all powerful. Thus, the omnipotence of your god is false. Also, if your god was so powerful, why didn't he stop terrible events like World War 2 and the Black Plague? Why wouldn't he intervene with humanity when we were causing so much deaths and suffering? The most logical reason is that because your god doesn't exist!
The Bible makes no sense!!!

Simply put, my opponet asserts that Miraculous happenings are illogical. He would be absolutely correct and the Bible would be inconsistent and illogical (making no sense) if it did not presuppose a world where an omnipotent God exists who is able to do anything He wishes regardless of human limitations. Since the God of the Bible is able to create matter from nothing, it is easy to concieve that He could fit all animals into a given space, or cause a pregnancy to occur without intercourse.
The Bible makes no sense!!!

The some parts of the Christian Bible makes no sense at all! The part when Noah somehow travels around the world and gather all the animals that exist. Then he manages to fit them in a homemade ark? Come on, use some logic! Also the part that says Virgin Mary became pregnant before sexual intercourse, absolutely illogical! There are many more inconsistencies in the Bible, so much that I would run out of space listing them. By the way, I hate how people say "I have faith!" so don't give me that.
Phones

Adding to the debate on phones being dangerous and causing people to be inattentive, my theory is that phones prove we are pushing further into the future. Although, the effects of being on a small screen do cause bad eyes etc., if there is a chance that these companies have the abilities to fix that problem, then it would push technology one step further onto the safer side. For example, I saw a stranger cross the road a week or so ago, and they was being shouted at due to the fact she was nearly hit by a car. That shows that being oblivious isn"t something that can be fixed by Samsung or Iphone, but taking phones away will ruin businesses and would throw technology backwards. It is not the phones being detrimental, because if it wasn"t bad for your eyes and brain, then it is just the idiocy and desperate need of phones. So it is us taking one fad to an extreme, which causes people to blame the phones for distracting them. I believe that if people had more self control, then they wouldn"t be getting distracted by the irresistible buzz of phones. My conclusion is that people have made a fallacy out of phones, believing that phones are relied on to keep us sane. For example, when my Dad was a child, the only phones were either in red boxes, or attached to a wire. When he was in his early 30s, they were bricks, and now, he acts like they have a completely different purpose.
This "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous

My salutations to shakuntala, it has been a 'unique' experience. I thank you very much for this debate, you have nonetheless been quite amicable. Let me first start by stating that a resolution cannot be rhetorical, and otherwise was never argued by my opponent. The resolution is different from the argument which is actually called rhetoric. Secondly if shakuntala's 'claim was rhetorical-and thus does not require proof', why start a debate? Also rhetorical statements do need proof, and since my opponent admits that he provides no proof, and provides no argument to the belief that he need not provide proof I win. Even if this is an arts debate, or literary debate there are concepts such as comical devices which could have been used. No evidence of any such thing was given. No defense against my subjectivity thesis was given, no argument against how this is pornographic and even inappropriate for debate.org was given. For all these reasons I beg to oppose. The resolution collapses. Faithfully Yours, Ajabi.
This "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous

I would also like to give my salutations to shakuntala. I want to remind the voters something. The onus is upon my opponent completely, he has presented absolutely no positive arguments, so even if he refutes my case, he would still lose because he has not justified his yardstick. I want to make one more thing clear, while arguments use rhetoric, resolutions are meant to be taken literally. If everyone started adding 'context' to resolutions then the debate would go no where. So keeping in mind the definitions we have accepted in round one, we know that at the very least shakuntala has to show that his poem would induce great amounts of comic or laughter. Has he provided any arguments for this? He has not. Onto the first contention, my wording may have been incorrect but even I stated that the Merchant of Venice got mixed views, and that is why it is a tragi-comedy. I made the mistake of using the word 'everyone' but I clearly justified it. I should remind you that while this is being used shakuntala has not once actually attacked the argument: the subjectivity of literature. My opponent says porn can be funny, that is disgusting. Well the operative word is 'can'. My opponent is constantly arguing that he need only show that a significant part of the population find this funny. He has never shown this. My opponent also leaves my argument about how the poem is esoteric and contains no comic devices. He does not fulfill his own condition of quoting parts of the poem as I have done. If anyone finds my post funny its because I overdosed by Nobilovol by mistake and my blood pressure is 90/65. Hallelujah! Faithfully Yours, Ajab.
This "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous

hi con con says "His first refutation is a semantics game. He states that I said there was a time when everyone liked the Merchant of Venice, I meant that nearly everyone," point 1 my demonstration was not a semantic one but an empirical one ie that you stated as a fact that EVERYONE found "the Merchant of Venice," humorous you now say that you where wrong to say every one but you did present that claim to refute my claim so i am allowed to use your claim in my defense point 2 con says "We are not debating the Merchant of Venice so there is really no need for me to try and prove that the Merchant was unanimously liked" but you used the "Merchant of Venice" in your demonstration to prove my position wrong therefore i am entitled to critique your arguments and your claim showed that if you can make a universal claim then so can I point 3 con says "Ladies and Gentlemen, respectfully sheweth, please note that my opponent has successfully shown that there is a possibility that the Merchant of Venice was not unanimously liked. This just proves my point regarding subjectivity I myself stated that it had mixed views also." but again con did say as a fact that EVERYONE found "the Merchant of Venice," humorous therefore your claim showed that if you can make a universal claim then so can I point 4 con says "He seems to also assume that the Merchant of Venice, and Colin Dean's poem are the same" You are wrrong I did not assume anywhere that the Merchant of Venice, and Colin Dean's poem are the same point 5 con says "He accepts it is porn, which is hardly funny" fact is porn can be funny- a humor that con can never see due to his dislike of what he says is disgusting sex POINT 6 but to the REAL point con I took and most people would take your claim that EVERYONE found "the Merchant of Venice," humorous as a rhetorical statement just like this claim is rhetorical ""I"m so hungry I could eat a horse." and that is what my claim "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous is ie it is a rhetorical statement which is http://www.wisegeek.com... "A rhetorical statement can also use other devices such as hyperbole and anaphora to construct a more persuasive and powerful argument. Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration in order to make a point, such as a common phrase like "I"m so hungry I could eat a horse." so again my claim that A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous that claim is a rhetorical just as your claim that EVERYONE found "the Merchant of Venice," humorous would be taken by most people to be a rhetorical statement
This "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous

I should start by pointing out that I am a strict asexual, I find sex, and anything sexual disgusting to say the least. With that my greetings to you shakuntala. The first thing that I would like to talk about is the burden of proof analysis that has been discussed by shakuntala. He admits that he necessarily needs to show that the poem is universally, and necessarily funny and comical for everyone. He admits that the onus is upon him to prove such a claim. This is strange because he has provided absolutely no positive material to make his case. He simply goes on and tries, miserably, to debunk my argument. This must be taken into account. His first refutation is a semantics game. He states that I said there was a time when everyone liked the Merchant of Venice, I meant that nearly everyone, but I shall accept this mistake of mine. We are not debating the Merchant of Venice so there is really no need for me to try and prove that the Merchant was unanimously liked. I shall even concede that I should have used a better word than 'everyone'. Ladies and Gentlemen, respectfully sheweth, please note that my opponent has successfully shown that there is a possibility that the Merchant of Venice was not unanimously liked. This just proves my point regarding subjectivity I myself stated that it had mixed views also. He seems to also assume that the Merchant of Venice, and Colin Dean's poem are the same. Since they are separate identities it seems unfair to carry the analogy this far as shakuntala has done. My point was subjectivity, my argument, which may be found, was exactly what shakuntala has shown. I was wrong to say everyone because people had subjective opinions, just as they would with this poem. Since literature is subjective this poem is not very humorous. My opponent has also not tackled my point regarding how it does not have comic relief, and does not use comic literary devices. On both tiers he has failed. I also once more remind the voters that not only did he not attack my subjectivity thesis, he also forgot to present a positive case. All I can say is that I want to die a virgin, and that is again your subjective opinion. He also accepts there are people who dont find what Dean has written funny. He accepts it is porn, which is hardly funny. Faithfully Yours, Ajab.
This "A Midsummers Nights Dream" is very humorous

hi con you make some good points POINT 1 you say "Motion suggests that the 'poem' is very humorous for everyone" and as you say "The resolution places the onus probandi on my opponent," yes I accept that which all I can say is you have given an example yourself that proves my point -as you seem to contradict yourself 1) you say about "The Merchant of Venice" When the play was originally produced it was taken as a comedy where EVERYONE enjoyed laughing at the misfortune of the Jew" NOW YOU SAY EVERYONE FOUND IT HUMOROUS SO I ASK YOU TO PROVE THAT- JUST AS you want me to prove that the poem MND is very humorous for EVERYONE you say because you did not find the poem MND humorous then my claim is dis proven so I could say I bet there was Jew that did not find " Merchant of Venice" humorous so then that would disprove your claim if you can make a claim that "The Merchant of Venice" When the play was originally produced it was taken as a comedy where EVERYONE enjoyed laughing .." then I can make the claim that the poem MND is very humorous- even though you did not laugh my point "The Merchant of Venice" was humorous and perhaps for some still is so I can say the poem MND is very humorous POINT 2 yes the poem might be porn but that does not mean porn cannot be humorous you seem to me very serious and seem to think that sex cannot be humorous - if you believe that then you are missing out on a lot of fun when you have sex POINT 3 you say the poem is porno-as a put down- because it deals with cocks and cu.t but you then when you have sex must see that as just a porno thing as you must get aroused which must mean by your views that you are watching porno or doing porno act
obama should be impeached

President Obama has committed “impeachable offenses,” “thuggery” is going on in the White House, and the United States is in danger of being turned “into a dictatorship,” Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, founder of the Tea Party Caucus, said in an interview with right-wing talk show host Randy Humphries. We can have an impeachment hearing in the House and in my mind, the president has committed impeachable offenses,” Bachmann. i have a website for you to visit about all the impeachable acts obama has done. here is a little glimpse 1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution. These individuals are given extraordinary power and independent funding, and are not under the scrutiny of Congress. The fact that Obama calls them Czars does not make them legal. He has also made illegal recess appointments of other members of his cabinet that required Senate approval. He simply declared that the U.S. Senate was in recess despite the fact that no such declaration had been made by the Senate. The President has no Constitutional authority to do this. and here is the website. http://www.redflagnews.com...
obama should be impeached

Obama should be impeached becuase he is a terrible president. He has purposefully lied about the Benghazi atrocity, instructed others to lie, and intimidated whistleblowers who were guilty of nothing but a desire for justice and the truth. While our Libyan Ambassador burned and others were slaughtered, he went to bed, not even caring enough to make one phone call as to the status of the seven hours of Hell. Prior to the attacks multiple requests for extra security in Benghazi, including from the murdered Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were refused by his regime. This was despite the fact that the British Embassy in Libya had been previously attacked just months earlier by Islamic terrorists. He has used taxpayer funds to run TV ads in Pakistan, pushing and promoting the lie that the Benghazi attacks were caused by a YouTube video. he closed White House tours to our children, while sending hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds to the known terrorist group, The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, including giving them F-16's and tanks.He has inflicted the nation with over 20,000 pages of incoherent rules, regulations, and mandates in the form of ObamaCare, which, for the first time in history, gives the federal government the power to force its citizens to buy something that only the government approves of.
Sharia Law in the UK

It is very funny argument, first of all UK is secular country.Secondly, you are very ignorant about topic. Because even sharia was the law of UK, and sharia says it cannot be imposed on non-Muslims, therefore sharia cannot be imposed in UK, because it is majority non-Muslim country. Do you want prove, go study history. Even incest relations was granted to Zoroastrians, who lived under Muslim countries, alcohol and pig farms was granted to Christians, and etc.If you compare Europe to historically Islamic Lands, you will see that there is no national religions left in Europe, all was destroyed. But in historical Muslim lands, there are still Christians, Jews (the second largest Jewish population in Middle East is Iran), Hindus, Buddhists, African religions (Parts of West Africa is also historically Islamic lands, search for Mansa Musa and Islam in Africa). How did they survive, well, thanks to Sharia.Sharia or Shariah basically means legislation.And Con does not know that when Muslims say we want sharia, they want sharia in civil matters for themselves, as Jews and Christians already have it. So if you say no sharia, you also have to ban it for Jews, and you will be called Nazi, so I take the privilege of being first person to call you Nazi.And also how did reformation come Europe and UK, it come from Muslims, even Oxford University was build by guys (I do not exactly remember names) who stole the the documents from Spain, which were left behind by Muslims, because, thanks to Spanish, Muslims and Jews were massacred.If you want to ban Sharia, you may start by "Presumption of Innocence", it came from Islam. The woman's right for education, inheritance, right to choose husband also came from Islam. Modern war code also came from Islam (don't kill elders, woman, children, who does not participate in battle, ad don't kill animals, and don't cut trees and crops).And it is a paradoxical topic. Here is the reason:1. Sharia is the main law of UK.2. Non-Muslims cannot be ruled by sharia.3 Non-Muslims are in majority in UK.4. Therefore Non-Muslim law is the main law.5. Therefore sharia cannot be main law in UK.