BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Trump declaring an emergency is abuse of his power and the Constitution

The president has a right to call for a national emergency and, This should be a challenge question for all future presidents should we just justify the situation if a president is allowed to declare a national emergency? I don"t remember this outcry when president Obama pulled his 12 national emergency orders. But with Trump, Who took the oath to protect the country is not allowed to use a national emergency. This is all because that the president wants a better barrier than what others wants. The barrier will make everyone come through a portal that a united states border patrol agent will check them in or make them leave.
Trump declaring an emergency is abuse of his power and the Constitution

Donald Trump is playing a very dangerous game. Maybe he thinks he is being clever taking so much power, But what happens when Democrats take charge, Eh? What then? They declare an emergency for the environment for global warming or gun violence, What then what mischief do they do then. Is that stupid wall worth destroying 200 years of constitutional limitied government, Because he has opened pandoras box, And nothing good will come of it.
Eating Meat increases risk of Cancer

I thank Con for his argument. I will delve into my Rebuttal, and analyze Con's argument. Rebuttal: Con's beginning; "can we cite actual sources? " Of course. After all, I didn't find only one site on the subject. [. http://www.pcrm.org... :: Along with colorectal cancer, meat can increase risk of breast cancer. ][. http://coloncancer.about.com... :: This site says eating meat does increase risk of colon cancer. ] "While eating excessive amounts of meat will certainly lead to cancers such as colon cancer, everything should be consumed in moderation! " So do you concede that meat can increase risk of colorectal cancer? Sure, you can moderate how much you eat, but that doesn't change the fact that the meat does increase cancer risk. Con's 1st source; "After detailed consideration of the epidemiological evidence on the relationship between red and processed meat intake and colorectal cancer risk, the report concludes that red and processed meat is probably associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. " Your source agrees that eating processed meat increases risk of colorectal cancer. "Since the evidence does not allow quantification of the amount of red and processed meat that may be linked with increased colorectal cancer risk, SACN is advising high consumers of red and processed meat to consider reducing their intakes. " They are taking precautions to reduce the risk that these consumers of red meat get colorectal cancer. This part also indicates a correlation with red/processed meat and colorectal cancer. Con's argument (Part 2); "So as you can see, consuming less than 70g per day of red meat would allow many people to maintain their healthy iron intake from the meat alone, and the risk of colon cancers as you mentioned, as far as we currently know, would be significantly lower. " Note he says "consuming less meat will lower the risk of cancer". He admits eating processed meat, as well as red meat, does in fact increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Con's conclusion; "It's clear that according to current scientific literature and recommendations from several national and international bodies that the consumption of red meat in excessive amounts will increase your chances of getting cancer(s). " Con concedes that processed meat increases cancer. Moderating how much meat you eat doesn't change the fact that eating it increases risk of colorectal cancer. Conclusion: My rebuttal showed Con's concession about meat increasing risk of colorectal cancer. I have provided sources of my own showing meat increases risk of colorectal cancer, as well as breast cancer.
Eating Meat increases risk of Cancer

Even if you lose, I still wish you keep debating and not give up debate. org. With that, on to my argument! Argument: According to the American Institute for Cancer Research's findings, eating 3.5 ounces of processed meat increases risk of colorectal cancer by 36%. Eating 7 ounces of red meat increases risk by 34% [. http://www.webmd.com...]. Con may ask questions as needed.
Eating Meat increases risk of Cancer

I argue that there is sufficient evidence showing processed meat increases the risk of cancer. Rules: 1. Round 1 is for acceptance only. 2. No kritiks, semantics, trolling, etc. 3. No new arguments in Round 4. 4. Forfeiting 2 rounds counts as a loss. Forfeiting Round 1 is an instant concession 5. Violation of these rules count as an instant loss. Who accepts this debate?
It's time to stop wearing mittens.

Evolution ====== My opponent claims that mittens inhibit free movement of the fingers and are therefore unnecessary in the face of other viable options. I mantain that mittens make your hands warmer than gloves which you have been so ardently defending. No one wewaring mittens is going mountain climbing or doing open heart surgery, how inhibited can mitten make your hands? The consequence of not wearing mittens is not simply that you are not wearing mittens but that your hands may be colder. It is more convenient to wear mittens. Trade-Off ======= My opponent now completely disregards the alleged trade-off which he brought up and so we can assume that he conceded that either there is no trade-off or the benefits of wearing mittens outweigh the costs. My opponent then cites an example of a straightjacket not being suited for cold weather because it was designed for another purpose. This is in essence reinforcing my own contention when I stated that one should not disregard mittens simply because it's harder to throw a snowball as that was not it's designated purpose. "That is absolutely worse than. .. what's your defense? " Mittens are warm, if a bit sweaty, so I'll take it"? Well, since gloves exist, that doesn't stand too well. You're restricting yourself for no reason. " You never responded when I asked you to show that gloves did not also make one's hands sweaty as well so wearing gloves as you assume is no guarrantee that your hands will be anyless sweaty. My opponent has made contentions for why people should stop wearing mittens which have all been refuted.
It's time to stop wearing mittens.

Thanks for the debate. Babies and Dolphins I was highlighting how ridiculous mittens were, I'm sorry if you didn't get that. Not so much a contention. Evolution It goes against practicality, is what I'm saying. You're agreeing to have a sweaty flipper over five capable fingers in an equally warm ï¿½glove. Mittens aren't the only thing out there. Im not only suggesting you don't wear mittens because their unnecessary, but because gloves exist. Why wear them when you have gloves, right there. The only consequence of not wearing mittens is simply that, not wearing mittens. No one needs mittens, we have the more practical gloves. Would you buy a pair of pants without foot holes at the bottom? No, that minimizes fluid mobility. You realize that is a bad thing, because you haven't taken a shovel blow to the head lately; you are still capable of recognizing that being bipedal is the natural state for a human being. Any item of clothing that seeks to take away that state, is a fundamentally flawed item. Such is the mitten. Trade- Off Would you buy a straight jacket for use in cold weather? It's probably warm. It's like you're hugging yourself, all the time. So why not? Because you know the answer to one simple question: Why do we have straight jackets? A: To contain the flailing limbs of madness. The straight jacket eliminates one of the primary advantages we have in the animal kingdom, because the wearer has been deemed too crazy to be allowed those advantages. It is an item of clothing whose primary distinction is the ability to make a human being altogether worse. ï¿½ Such is the mitten. ï¿½That is absolutely worse than. .. what's your defense? " Mittens are warm, if a bit sweaty, so I'll take it"? Well, since gloves exist, that doesn't stand too well. You're restricting yourself for no reason. Our dexterity is simply and thoroughly crushed by the sheer power of the mitten. It's awe inspiring, really. One small, continuous scrap of fabric has the power to essentially nullify millions of years of natural selection. What can you do about it? Have compassion for the lost souls that knit the mittens; know that they know not what they do. Pity the poor souls afflicted by the wearing of the mitten, and let them hear your gospel so their lives might shine out again. Empathize with the store-owners selling the mitten, and do not hate them, but rather seek to enlighten them so that we might finally move on from this dark age. But most of all, I beseech you: Console the ambidextrous. They have it the worst; twice the demoralization for the same low, low price.
It's time to stop wearing mittens.

Evolution ====== Your beginning argument that mittens "wind back your evolutionary clock" is a very confusing one if I might say so. You wrote that we evolved fingers, so to wear a garment which might hinder the extention of our digits goes against our evolutionary history and so you believe that means we should not wear mittens. So what if something goes against evolution. A social Darwinist would say that welfare goes against evolution in that a basic princple is that only the fittest survive. Should we ignore the needs of others in order to let evolution take it's course? I hope you would agree with me that our entire lives should not be dictated by our evolutionary history. Especially something trivial like what kind of hand garment one wears. Trade-Off ======= Your next contention is that the trade off one makes when wearing mittens is not worth it. "The mitten is very warm. This is true, and it deserves at least that recognition. It is warmer than a glove" "the warmth of the mitten inevitably comes with an expense: sweaty, greasy, disgusting digits" You contend that the warmth the mittens bring the wearer is cancelled out by giving the wearer sweaty fingers. Not to be nitpicky but you really have to back up this claim before we can even accept that such a trade-off exists. Why do mittens make one's hands more sweaty or greasy than a glove? Also, even if we are to accept that a trade-off does indeed exist, one could say that the warmth mittens bring is more valueable than the sweaty fingers they may entail. I would certainly prefer sweaty fingers over frostbite or frozen hands. Even if a trade-off exists the benefits would out-weigh the risks. ? = Your next argument is incredibly confusing to decipher through. You claim that mittens are used to protect one's hands from the snow, I can agree with this, but that they really don't in that if one makes a snowball while wearing mittens, their snowball will be smaller or less effective as intended. This of course is not the reason people wear mittens. It is understandable to be in favor of baseball gloves if those gloves help protect one's hand and help to catch baseballs. It is however not understandable to be against say a sock because it does not protect one's hand or help to catch baseballs. One must remember what the intended use is for a product. Mittens are made to keep one's hands warm, not to throw snowballs. Babies ===== I am again at a loss as you have just argued in favor of mittens being worn by babies. Your resolution however was that people should stop wearing mittens and as you did not single out any specific group,we may apply this to everyone, including babies. So, since you conceded that mittens were beneficial to babies who wear them you have conceded your entire argument. Dolphins ====== I will not seriously respond to this contention in that it was not meant to be serious and does not need to be addressed. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Pro's odd and confusing arguments have all been refuted. I now await my opponent's final round in this debate.
Aircraft were perhaps the most necessary of inventions in transportation.

Mr. Lee. Your paper is well written and decently covers the history of man"s desire for flight and the history of the development of flight. Your resolution however is "Aircraft were perhaps the most necessary of inventions in transportation." I submit to you the definition of "necessary." Necessary: "being essential, indispensable, or requisite"(1) While flight has changed the world and expanded capabilities it is hardly necessary. This is empirically evident, as man traveled without flight for the entire history of man, excluding the last 100 years or so. I submit that the wheel is the most necessary invention in transportation. Weather I am right or not hardly matters as it has been shown that flight is not a necessary invention for transportation. The resolution is negated. (1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Cowspiracy

Thank you again for showing me your source I do know that most of these ways of animals abuse in not in most countries, but let me correct you again on 'a meat eater means you have to condone cruelty against animals.' The point in not that only animals are killed for human entertainment, but the fact that the animal died just for us to eat meat in some most barbaric and cruel ways in death in some countries. As, 'Wearetheworld' yet again you have said that we can learn one another from preventing this in the future, I hardly doubt that these things will change, with in time it will change soon. The fact that some of these animals have to go through some of the most vile harsh environments even with safe regulation, but hat the fact that these animals were killed senselessly for our needed nourishments and yet more. Again more than 56 billion animals are killed by humans, with every 3,000 being killed each second in different slaughterhouses right now. It's time we know that animals are living creatures, with emotions that have irreplaceable lives just like ours. Many of us believe that animals shouldn't be harmed, which is unnecessary for human health. Humans were never meant to eat meat, yet they do. If you ask me that humans are carnivore, why cannot we just eat the meat raw instead of preparing right here and then? Humans are 'Omnivores' with not having sharp canines, thus to having small flat 'canines'. Many carnivores are known to have sharp canines easily able to rip chunks of meat apart and does not require much chewing due to their stronger stomach acid that kills the bacteria breaking down unneeded flesh that would entirely kill or sicken them. Human back molars are only suited to crush and flatten fibrous plants, with carnivores lacking these molars. Therefore, humans are consider to be herbivores and not 'carnivores'. Source: http://www.peta.org... http://www.animalequality.net...
Cowspiracy

Just as mentioned by you "Sorano", is the meat eating not just about how if effects global warming. It is also that we allow and support animal abuse but you have to remember that this is not the case in all countries. In Sweden where I live for example, we have strict rules on how to handle livestock but it also applies to birds, such as chickens and turkeys. The animals are well fed, have good living spaces and when taken to the slaughterhouse they are killed in the fastest, most painless way possible. Something that other countries can learn from. I agree that everybody has to contribute to reducing the carbon footprint but I do not agree that beeing a meat eater means you have to condone cruelty against animals. Source: http://api.worldanimalprotection.org... (protecting animals used in farming)
Cowspiracy

Have you watched the documentary "Cowspiracy?" I have, and it was a eye opener for me. It made me realize that the meat eating is a major reason for the global warming. Not only that, but what a difference we can make by reducing our carnivorous. Belive it or not, it helps our future generations, children, grandchildren, and perhaps our great-grandchildren, to be able to live on this earth. Me personally, do not want to stop eating meat completely because I love meat. But, I could imagine eating vegetarian once a week to contribute to the global warming reduces. Imagne if everyone in the world would do that. We do not need to become vegetarians or vegans, but we eat incredibly much meat today and we can make a change. Together we can recude our impact on global warming. Even though it is a small change for us to do in everyday life, it will be a big change for the world. There are many other small things we can change in our lifes that also reduces our impact on the global warming. For example, we can choose to take the bike to school, work, the gym or locations relatively close instead of taking the car. By taking the bike, you get free exercise and at the same time we reduce the carbon emissions. I think most do not know how serios global warming is and what consequences are. I really recommend all of you to watch "cowspiracy", not it purpose for you the become vegans or vegetarians but that more people will relaize how serious the situation is. More in order to you to learn than anything else. We can make a change, do what YOU can to save the world. What are your opinions on meat eating and the environment issue?
Cowspiracy

I disagree with your previous statement regarding the animals living environments because that would contradict the purpose of the regulation and it is up to the authorities in each country to insure that they are being followed. Anyone that only eat vegetarian food has to supplement their diet with protein and aminoacids that has been proven scientifically. I have a good friend that is vegan that has to supplement his diet with vitamin B12, vitamin D, calcium and iron. As also shown on this vegan website that he referred me to. Another concern for vegetarians/vegans should be GMO projects such as monsanto's genetically modified organism. " The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Human studies show how genetically modified (GM) food can leave material behind inside us, possibly causing long-term problems. Genes inserted into GM soy, for example, can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside us, and that the toxic insecticide produced by GM corn was found in the blood of pregnant women and their unborn fetuses. " - Quote from http://responsibletechnology.org... By the way, GMO's are banned in Sweden ;). Source: http://www.theveganrd.com...
The egg came before the chicken.

I hope that after I have posted, the audience will be able to make an accurate and informed decision. The point I mentioned the last round about OV-17 only being present in a Chicken's ovaries is true. The keyword in the original definition is "ALL" of the genetics necessary to make a chicken. Can a chicken without that chemical truly be a chicken? The answer must be no, as it does not not have all of the necessary genetics to create a chicken, until it becomes the chicken itself. I direct you to this link: . http://gizmodo.com... Next, I would like to pose a question. Say an alligator lay an egg. This egg is an alligator egg, as an alligator laid it. Say a lizard hatched from it. Is it now a lizard egg? No. Finally, I would like to flesh out my argument from last round. One single evolution/generation of a species does not create a new one. The change is gradual. Thus, in a single generation, the new "chicken" couldn't have been born.
The egg came before the chicken.

You cannot change the definition of the egg the round before the debate ends. The definition of the egg should be as previously agreed upon. If we believe this definition to be true, then the egg did indeed come first. It is also not "ridiculous and untrue" that that the egg was laid by proto-chickens. And even though proto-chickens laid this egg, it was in fact the first egg. By your definition of an egg (the original one), it does not matter WHO laid the egg, but the fact that this egg contains all the genetics necessary to create a chicken. I would very much like you to read this article and WATCH this video and you will completely understand my argument and WHY it is true. Also to address your point that since this evolution process is slow than one generation would not make a new species. It is in fact true that the process is slow, but TECHNICALLY genes would change in each generation making it so that eventually there WOULD be one single generation that held all the genetics that created a TRUE chicken, and that chicken would be laid by an egg. The first egg the contains all the genetics necessary to create a, by today's standards, chicken. Which means that the egg came first.
The egg came before the chicken.

The idea that an egg laid by a proto-chicken is ridiculous and untrue. A proto-chicken egg, despite being a chicken, would still be a proto-chicken's egg, not a chicken egg. Firstly, the material OV-17 is only found in the ovaries of a chicken. Thus, to have a chicken egg, it would have to have been born from a chicken. Thus, to have a true chicken egg, a chicken itself would have to lay it. While the egg that gave birth to a chicken might have been the first "Chicken egg" it wasn't the first true Chicken Egg, the egg capable of laying a chicken. The defintion of Egg should be as follows: The egg that a genetic chicken is born from, AND containing all the charisterics of a chicken egg." Secondly, the process of evolution is so slow, no single generation would make a new species. It takes millions of years for a truly new species to evolve. Thus, one generation would not truly be a new species, or the chicken, in our example.
The egg came before the chicken.

First off, I do believe that my opponent here was believe to be quoting Genesis 1:20 not Genesis 19:20.Next is the plausibility of my previous statement that chicken-like (or what are now going to be refereed to as Proto-chickens) created the first chicken egg. It is actually highly plausible and accepted among a vast majority of the scientific community as factual information.Chickens became chickens through a long process of evolution and at a point proto-chickens produced an offspring that had mutation within its DNA. This DNA mutation made this proto-chicken offspring into the chicken we know today. What I am saying is that proto-chickens gave birth to an 'official' chicken. And since that chicken came from an egg that, even though laid by a proto-chicken, did not produce a proto-chicken means that it is a chicken egg not a proto-chicken egg. And since that egg is a chicken egg, that means that the egg did in fact come before the chicken. What I am saying revolves around scientific facts, what I do not want this debate to turn into is creationism vs. evolutionism. You may believe that God created chickens that then laid chicken eggs, but that is not fact, that is opinion.
The egg came before the chicken.

Despite being an Atheist, I would like to quote the Holy Bible. Genesis: 19: 20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." If the Bible is accepted as true, it means that the Chicken came before the egg. Also, while I would like to agree that the idea of two egg laying creatures mating is possible, it is not probable that they would mutate into the Chicken. Possibly the mutation was that the creature would lay an egg. Perhaps the chicken was originally a mammal, not a bird. The chance that the egg came first is slim.