BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Meat and Dairy animal production and consumption is necessary.

I will not be debating in the policy debate format, for it is outside of my expertise. First off there you need to establish, well people are not being fed as it is around the world. In select parts of the world outside of the U. S many a country have no money for dairy or meat. Often these are confused as western luxuries. If not eating meat or dairy were to be pressured into looked down as a socially unacceptable morale this could lead to the change itself. Next the food that is used to feed these livestock could feed 1.4 billion humans. Now there still is the argument that there will not be enough food to feed humanity. Well there is roughly 6 billion people on the world today. The simple truth behind this is that neither side gives a solution to ending world hunger. But going green would substantially slow down this process as I end with a quote from Russel Simmons, entrepreneur and philanthropist- " It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat. If we just ate grain and left the animals alone we could feed the world and stop starvation" in addition to this it also takes 5,000 gallons of water. Outside of this a large amount of soil, trees, rain forest land is used to create land for pastures. Ending this usage of meat and dairy products could substantially promote the go green idea. This evidence is shown in my selfempowermentacademy. com source below providing a substantially self explained argument on how it will save energy, lower excretion pollution, and how these animals are often given better treatment than many humans themselves. Would be nice to trade a cow life for a humans, would it not? (. http://www.meatstinks.com...) (. http://www.selfempowermentacademy.com.au...)
Meat and Dairy animal production and consumption is necessary.

Meat and Dairy animals have been domesticated since the beginning of time. The planets eco-system could not survive if the highly reproductive meat and dairy animals were not managed and controlled. The facts are that sound practices are implemented in livestock agriculture to insure the health and productivity of the animals that products created by them. The BEEF checkoff program for instance trains and promotes and offers premiums to producers that incorporate sound practices such as safe sweeping gate and fences, vaccinations only applied in the neck muscle to prevent pain and damage just to name a few. The earth could not produce enough plant and plant products to support 100% human and meat animal vegetarianism. I will provide several accurate facts to back these points further in the next rounds.
Reality is what we perceive it to be.

I'll define terms in this round, and debate can begin in round 2. All that I feel is necessary to be defined is "reality" and "perceive" From . http://dictionary.reference.com... reality — n 1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be 2. something that is real 3. the state of being real 4. philosophy a. that which exists, independent of human awareness b.
Reality is what we perceive it to be.

1) Extend all of my arguments. My case was unaddressed. 2) My opponent continues to make assertions, rather than arguments. They are unwarranted and he garners no offense from them. 3) The video is interesting, although it has a few flaws. First, the video clearly makes a *distinction* between perception and reality. Second, the authenticity and reliability of the video is limited; how much can we trust YouTube for our knowledge? I urge a Con vote.
Reality is what we perceive it to be.

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be. In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has being, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. obviously the individual indeed concluded his ideology of what was suppose to be perceive to be true. however the man was in the presents of time, time is what separates us from of god. 1. We each have 5 physical senses , which are used in our dimension of time "the physical" 2. The supernatural is excluded of our dimension and can be filtered in the link of time "the physical" 3.To understand the reality, we would need to "die" exit our physical body, and confront the supernatural dimension. My "whole" point is that the reality in "the physical" is what we perceive but the reality of reality is behind the supernatural. if you still are uncertain of my statement .watch this video. it has great information. http://www.youtube.com...
Joke contest

"Make a wish" it is:Joke 1:A bear and a hare meet a fairy in the woods. The Fairy grants each three wishes, because they've been good animals. She tells them, however, that they need to take turns, so that everything stays nice and fair.The hare lets the bear go first, and the bear stands up on his hind legs, punches his chest with a mighty paw and declares: "I wish for all bears in this forest except for me to be females!"The good Fairy waves her wand, and *poof*: it is done.The hare wishes for a helmet, and the Fairy gives him one.The bear looks down at the hare and tells him: "You don't know a thing about wishes. Who wants a helmet, when he can turn all bears in the whole country into females, all except for himself?"And *poof* - the Fairy changes all those bears into females.The hare wishes for a motorcycle.The bear laughs. "Better, little one, but your motorcycle will never get you this far: I wish for all bear in the world except for me to be females!"And *poof* it is done.The hare has meanwhile climbed his machine and started it. He puts on his helmet and speeds away, yelling over his shoulder: "I WISH FOR HIM TO BE GAY!"Joke 2:A man once wished from a Fairy that his c*ck would reach the floor. And *poof*! There he stood on his two inch legs.Have a great time, this was fun!
Joke contest

Joke: 1 There were two people who hated each other on different sides of the beach. One found a lamp, polished it, and out pops a genie! The genie says "You get three wishes, but when you wish for something, the guy on the other side of this beach gets double!" His first wish was a million bucks, and when it puffed up, the other guy was jumping up and down: he had found 2 million bucks. His second wish was a beautiful wife, and when he got it, the other guy got two beautiful wives. "What will be your final wish?" the genie asked. The guy thought for a moment, looked at the other guy, with 2 million bucks and 2 beautiful wives, and said "beat me half to death!" Joke 2: Yo momma so ugly when she goes to a strip club, she gets payed to keep her clothes ON.
Joke contest

I'm not talking about the toad one, I'm talking about you calling a joke a "short story". Which is laughable, and hence a joke.Joke 1:A man died and found himself in Hell. He demanded to speak to the Devil because there must have been a mistake, because he had never done anything bad in his life. The Devil appeared in a puff of smoke and said: "Nobody comes here without reason. You MUST have done something wrong. Murder?""No!", the man claimed. "I saw a murder in the back of my house once, but I closed the window and curtains, so I wasn't even close and never got in touch with it!""Theft?", the Devil inquired."Never!", the man insisted. "I lived in a neighbourhood where a lot of others stole, but I never got involved and looked away, so I would not be tainted by it all!""So, you really saw all this happening, but never got yourself involved?""By the life of my children, I swear!" The man now had really high hopes of getting out of this fix."Well, then it's settled." The Devil smiled and shook his head. "You're right where you belong. Have a nice time, you merciless little man!"Joke 2:What's a sweater? It's that thing you had to wear as a child whenever your mother was cold.
Joke contest

Seriously: See the comments for the proper definition of "joke". Since it is well known, I must assume you were joking when you asked: "so we're doing short stories now too huh?"So you made THREE jokes on your round 3 entry, which is against the rules. I leave it to the audience to be the judge on this and proceed with another two jokes.Joke 1:Two lunatics prepare to escape from the asylum. The first one tells his plan:"Here, mate! I stole this torchlight from one of the guards. When night comes, I'll shine a beam of light over the fence. You slide down, I throw you the torch, you shine a beam right up to this here window and I'll come sliding down, too!"The other replies: "You think I'm crazy? So that you can turn the light off when I'm halfway down and I'll fall?"Joke 2:A big animal with a trunk is an elephant. And a SMALL animal with a trunk?Well, that's a mouse packing for the holidays.
Joke contest

So, one with animals and humans? You're on:A duck comes into a bar and asks the bartender: "Have any bread?"The bartender is baffled and replies: "Um, no? This is a bar."The duck nods slowly, and asks: "Have any - bread?"The bartender gets irritated: "No. As I said: this is a bar, we don't serve BREAD!"The duck thinks for a while and inquires: "Have any bread?""NO!" shouts the barkeeper. "And if you stupid beast ask me that ONE MORE TIME, I'll NAIL YOUR STUPID BEAK TO THE COUNTER!"The duck hesitates for a second, then asks: "Have any nails?""What? No! None of those, either!" the barkeeper angrily snarls."Have any bread?" the duck asks.And another about mothers. Let's see:What does an experienced, hardened policeman do if he's sent to arrest his own mother? - Call for backup, and as much as he can possibly get!
Is the world changing for the better (pro for better con for not)

First of all, thank you for the debate and don't sweat it on the forfeiture my friend :). The world is changing for the better and for the worstWorld is changing for the betterMore new nations and peoples gaining a homelandsome conflicts are being resolvedthe new generation is making a name for itselftechnolgy is boomingWorld is changing for the worsemore warsmore violencegreater threats of terroists
Is the world changing for the better (pro for better con for not)

Wow! Great essay my friend, great arguments :). Thank you for the debate :).I believe the world is changing, some for the better, some for worse.Better: More nations are gaining independence and finding a place in this worldDemocracy is expanding slowly but surleyReligion is becoming more of a solace for peooleSome conflicts are being resolved (US vs Cuba)But there are worse things in the world too:Rise of terrorists like Boko Haram and ISISThe Yemen UnrestUkraine warColumbia WarMexico drug warSo yes, the world is changing, for the better and for the worst.Thank you again for this debate :)
Is the world changing for the better (pro for better con for not)

Hey guys ,I will be glad if you read my essay and give me tips how ti improve it .Thankx in advance Prompt : Is the world changing for the better The world is changing all the time.Some people think it changes for the better ,while otherr think it worsens.In my opinion , the world around us is becoming better and better.I believe that we should always try to ameliorate our 'own world' ,making the whole world a better place.The subsequent examples from history and literature assert my point of view that our world is always changing and it changes for the better . In 14th century,in Italy began the era of the Renaissance.The new thinking and new ideas superseded the belief that God had created the world and he was everything we should have strived for ,our paragon of virtue.In 1356 a yound woman accidentally discovered male and a famale body in the wood.She was very astute and quite interested in biology and realized thath men and women had the same number of ribs.According to The Bible ,God takes one rib away from women and gives it to men ,in order to make them more powerful than women.Later,this woman became the first person to contravene the mores and ideas of the church ,becoming the first doctor in the world.The Renaissance absolutely changed the view that God was omnipotent and that we were under his authority.This era gave the world writers like Dante and Bocacco ,artists and scientists like Leonardo da Vinci .These people decided to controvert the church and change the world.They made it better ! 'The dreamers' is a novel , written by one of the most famous African writers Walter Uanda.The novel is about two brothers who dream of becoming politicians and changing the communistic regime of their country.Inspired by true events,the author recounts how the young boy is killed during a 'peaceful' demonstration by the national army ; twenty years later ,his brother becomes tha first democratic president of the country.The champions the poor and influences smany African countries to stand against communism.He changed the African world for the better . The world does not change in a constant rate.We choose how to change it ,and it depends on us if it will be changing for the better or for the worse.Since it`s inception ,the Earth has been evolving , and it keeps evolving at the moment ; we all hope it evolves for the better . http://talk.collegeconfidential.com...
Is the world changing for the better (pro for better con for not)

No, the world is not changing for the better. Threat of nuclear destruction, disease, political and religious conflicts, rising terrorist organizations, faltering birthrates in 1st world countries, failing economies, failing American educational system, voter apathy, running out of resources, "climate change", etc . As much as we'd might like to believe the world is changing for the better; the harsh reality is that the world is becoming overpopulated, fossil fuels are running low and until we find a replacement we are at risk of loosing precious infrastructure and the effectiveness of supplies. And if we can't get resources over a matter of miles via car then food lines will run thin and we'll have a hard time feeding our people. And last time I checked politics are very effect anymore, so I doubt things will be solved quick. Anyone else hear helter skelter from Ferguson ? debate_power saysNovember 25 2014 04:18 PM Report Post It's going to reach its low point when the world is finally fully transformed into a capitalist country and when the rich and the poor are the only two social classes. Mister_Man saysDecember 1 2014 07:24 PM Report Post The world is slowly dying. Not very quickly, but it is slowly changing for the worse. http://www.debate.org...
Greedo shot first

My opponent says, "If you've watched [The Force Awakens] or even read the expanded universe you will see countless times where Han talks his way out of things even when blasters are being pointed at him. Killing Greedo would complicate things because more bounty hunters would come after him." If we're going to count the expanded universe as canon (which I'll allow my opponent to do if they so choose), then Han prefers shooting first. He even says in Han Solo at Stars' End, an EU novel, "I happen to like to shoot first, Rekkon. As opposed to shooting second." (see starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Han_Solo_at_Stars%27_End and the section "Smuggling career" in starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Han_Solo/Legends) That proves that he prefers shooting first (or being the only shooter) to shooting second. My opponent also says, "We also have to understand that Han Solo just isn't an anti hero. Your thinking more of Anakin (Pre episode 3). Anakin will always get things done, whether it includes killing unarmed people or not. If it gets the job done he doesn't care but Han Solo on the other hand is extremely two dimensional in that you know what he's going to do. He has a soft heart and wont kill unless its absolutely necessary. I wouldn't say it makes him uninteresting, his personality is great, its just he is not an anti hero." However, it is quite clear when watching Star Wars that Han Solo is indeed an antihero, at least for part of Episode 4. He's sarcastic, cynical, and doesn't take orders from anyone (with the sole exception of himself). My opponent finally says, "You also bring up the fact that Greedo couldn't miss Han at that range. http://starwars.wikia.com...... Blaster fire is not like real life. Blasters rarely hit their intended target unless aimed down the sights with good accuracy. There is also proof that Greedo was just a bad shot with a blaster and was overconfident ' In adulthood, Greedo was overconfident and slow on the uptake, and something of a poor shot with a blaster' (http://starwars.wikia.com......) If you mix all these factors in you have an overconfident person with a poor shot who is not even aiming down his sights. So this could of course could happen. I'm not saying its a definitive circumstance its just that its definitely possible." Even if Greedo were a poor shot with a blaster, which he might have been, missing Han from 3 feet away is still highly unrealistic. A bad aim isn't enough to miss someone from that distance. You'd have to be near-blind to fail at shooting someone from 3 feet away. And contrary to what my opponent says, blasters are actually precise. After all, the stormtroopers use them (starwars.wikia.com/wiki/E-11_blaster_rifle), and according to Obi-Wan, the stormtroopers aim precisely (He opined to Luke that "[The] blast points [were] too accurate for Sand People" and that "Only Imperial Stormtroopers [were] so precise.").
Greedo shot first

This is my first debate outside of politics so get ready for political references (Not!) Anyway we have to understand the situation Han Solo is in Greedo is asking money for Jabba the Hutt but Solo doesn't have it. There is absolutely no indication Greedo will shoot and if he does it defeats the purpose because then Solo cant pay the money. Solo also knows this because face it he is not an idiot. If you've watched the new film or even read the expanded universe you will see countless times where Han talks his way out of things even when blasters are being pointed at him. Killing Greedo would complicate things because more bounty hunters would come after him. We also have to understand that Han Solo just isn't an anti hero. Your thinking more of Anakin (Pre episode 3). Anakin will always get things done, whether it includes killing unarmed people or not. If it gets the job done he doesn't care but Han Solo on the other hand is extremely two dimensional in that you know what he's going to do. He has a soft heart and wont kill unless its absolutely necessary. I wouldn't say it makes him uninteresting, his personality is great, its just he is not an anti hero. You also bring up the fact that Greedo couldn't miss Han at that range. http://starwars.wikia.com... Blaster fire is not like real life. Blasters rarely hit their intended target unless aimed down the sights with good accuracy. There is also proof that Greedo was just a bad shot with a blaster and was overconfident " In adulthood, Greedo was overconfident and slow on the uptake, and something of a poor shot with a blaster" (http://starwars.wikia.com...) If you mix all these factors in you have an overconfident person with a poor shot who is not even aiming down his sights. So this could of course could happen. I'm not saying its a definitive circumstance its just that its definitely possible. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... http://starwars.wikia.com... http://starwars.wikia.com...
Greedo shot first

This is a debate that has existed since 1997: did Han shoot in retaliation to Greedo attempting to shoot him, or did Han suddenly shoot Greedo without Greedo attempting to shoot him? (This is about Star Wars, if you couldn't tell.) The answer is the latter. George Lucas should not have changed that scene in A New Hope. It didn't improve anything - and you should never change a running system. Secondly, in the original version where Han shot Greedo without warning, Han's character was more well-written. Han shooting Greedo without warning made him seem like more of an antihero than a hero, which made his character interesting. Having him shoot only in retaliation ruined the antihero effect. Thirdly and finally, there's no way that Greedo could have missed Han from 3 feet away. That's just stupid. Are we honestly supposed to believe that Greedo has the worst aim of anyone ever? I welcome anyone to accept this challenge and debate me.
Greedo shot first

My opponent objects to my statement that it's possible that Han didn't use the DL-44 in The Force Awakens only out of fear that it might overheat, asserting that "he [was] using [the DL-44] like hotcakes" in the forest battle in Return of the Jedi. Again, this might have been because, after decades of having used the DL-44, he decided that he didn't want to risk the quick overheating. Remember that The Force Awakens takes place about 3 decades after Return of the Jedi (wikipedia. org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens). My opponent also says, "As a smuggler you can have a kind heart or a dark one. It just depends on the person. And believe me Han Solo has a kind heart". But, as I have previously stated, Han Solo does have a kind heart at the end of the day, but he does do some questionable things. Lacking conviction for a cause does make you an antihero (if the cause is moral and just, anyway), because it shows that you don't care about something you should care about.
Greedo shot first

Major Spoliers so anyone who hasn't watched Force Awakens don't read what I say. There is no collateral damage around Han and he has 3 people pointing guns at him on the ship scene. You say its because the gun may overheat? That's not the case in the 10 minute forest battle where he is using that thing like hotcakes. Again a person who LACKS conviction for a cause is less of an anti-hero because conviction leads you to take actions that are not moral for that cause. As a smuggler you can have a kind heart or a dark one. It just depends on the person. And believe me Han Solo has a kind heart
Greedo shot first

George Lucas doesn't have power over what's canon or not, nor did he in the past (or if he ever had power, he shouldn't have had it). Authorial intent doesn't make it canon. If it were canon, it would've been in the movie. I do realize that he put it in the 1997 special edition of the movie, but he shouldn't have - because, as I stated in Round 1, you should never change a running system. I've already seen The Force Awakens, so spoil away. My opponent has mentioned that in Episode 7, Han, who has a wookiee with a bow caster by his side and a DL-44, doesn't shoot people who have guns pointed at him. What my opponent fails to realize is that this might have been due to the fact that, despite giving tremendous damage to victims at close range, the DL-44 overheated quickly (starwars.wikia.com/wiki/DL-44_heavy_blaster_pistol). I do realize that this is the same gun that Han used in the original trilogy, but it's possible that after decades of having used it, he decided that the fast overheating outweighed the tremendous damage it could give to targets. My opponent has said that, since an antihero is someone with a cold heart who goes through any means to get their goals, Han is not an antihero as that does not describe him. However, Han does have somewhat of a cold heart. He initially couldn't care less about the rebellion. My opponent has also said that Han's job is to smuggle and make money, which is why he doesn't initially care about the rebellion. My opponent has used this to defend Han's character. However, being a smuggler is somewhat shady in and of itself, so this just adds to his antihero character. The fact that smuggling and making some cash is pretty much all that he cares about (at first, anyway) makes him an antihero.