BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Veganism is not better than eating meat

To start off i would like to point out that I am not a vegan, nor do I agree with them. However, i do believe that the people that choose to be vegans should not be persecuted by others. Also, the resolution that my opponent proposed states that "Veganism is not better than eating meat." Therefore, since the resolution is so vague, in order for me to win this debate, all I have to prove is that Veganism is a better option for the individuals that choose to be Vegans rather than if they simply ate meat. 1. Veganism is a choice made by individuals to clear their own conscious. Many vegans turn to Veganism because of the fact that they do not feel morally comfortable eating meat. 2. Health is not a major factor of Veganism. Vegans obtain the protein that their bodies need in ways other than eating meat. 3. Vegans are choosing to be Vegans; therefore, they obviously think it is a BETTER OPTION for them to be Vegans. Which, as i stated previously, is all I need to prove in order to win this debate. That Veganism is a BETTER OPTION for those individuals.
Veganism is not better than eating meat

Vegans choose the lifestyle to refrain from eating meat products such as meat, eggs, fish, and milk for many moral, health, and environmental reasons, I believe, in all honesty, that unless being a vegan is a personal dietary choice made to suit your own health needs, veganism is riduculous. In the first round my opponent and I will establish our positions and continue the debate from rounds 2-4 1. Eating non meat products is not morally superior to eating meat 2. Eating non meat products is not always necessarily the healthier choice 3. Eating non meat products does not necessarily benefit the environment around us
Veganism is not better than eating meat

The debate wasn't supposed to be whose choice it was to personally decide whether one should or should not be a vegan. The debate was supposed to compare the pros and cons of vegan and meat diets on the basis of morals, health, environment, etc in general. Not among people with which is why I attempted to exclude them in the beginning. I suppose I was too vague in my title and in my first post so I apologize. I intended to be a debate about agreeing and disagreeing with the principles and reasons of vegan and meat diets.
FDR was not a great president.

FDR is made out to be a top five president in American history. This is not the case. The New Deal did not stop or even slow down the Great Depression. Actually it hurt it. After FDR's New Deal legislation was passed, unemployment went up and the US hit another recession. What fixed the economy was World War 2. In his last two terms, he inherited a world war. In terms of politics, this is the best thing that could happen to a president. He looks heroic and patriotic, he gets to expand his powers, and his name will go down in the annals of history. FDR also had great generals that helped him win the war. The worst thing that he could have done after the war he did. He handed Stalin half of Europe, even when Churchill begged him not to. He created the Cold War. Roosevelt was naive and foolish after World War 2 by trusting Stalin. He is responsible for the suffering of Eastern Europeans for the next 45 years.
TCU got scammed

Although Pro has forfeited a round, I'll provide a rebuttal of his arguments from round 2. I'll break out his arguments below. 1) "Its schedule wasn't tough compared to Oregon, Alabama and OSU. FSU faced one top ten team. TCU had 3. (At the time for both) TCU went 2/3 and very close on the loss to Baylor." R1: Actually, FSU had a tougher schedule than TCU, and this can be seen in [3]. Your point about top ten teams is correct (TCU was 2/3 and FSU was 1/1) but never did the committee publish that they were specifically looking at records against top ten teams exclusively. This is not part of the decision process outlined in their protocol. It is a neat discussion topic that sports casters use but doesn't show the entire picture and it is not the same as strength of schedule (SOS). I believe SOS is, as it should be, compiled each week. This means that the TCU SOS diminished as the top ranked teams that it beat subsequently lost. Each team played four ranked teams. TCU lost to one of their ranked opponents, and only one of the remaining three stayed ranked. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia ended with a four, six and five loss regular season. On the contrary, three of the four ranked teams that FSU beat remained ranked at the end of the year. The teams that it beat each had three losses, including against FSU. Notre Dame, the only team that fell out of the rankings, had 5 losses. 2) "TCU, in its bowl game, almost shut out a top 10 SEC Ole Miss team. When FSU faced another top ten team (well this time, top 5) they got killed." R2: This argument is invalid because it is based on a fact that occurred after the decision was made. For a deceptive act to have taken place, Pro would have to provide evidence that the playoff committee knew the outcomes of subsequent games and based their decision to exclude TCU on this knowledge. Thanks for the debate.
TCU got scammed

First, I"d like to provide the key definition and outline Pro"s argument and burden of proof. Scam (Merriam-Webster): a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation [1] In order for Pro to prove this argument, Pro must provide evidence that the College Football Playoff Selection Committee (CFPSC) was deceptive (had ulterior motives) in their choice to include FSU in the college football playoffs instead of TCU. I will share the burden of proof and provide evidence for the counter-argument. As Con, I will prove that the CFPSC was clear and concise in their selection protocol and that they acted within their protocol when their chose FSU over TCU. The protocol they used this year was adopted on June 20th, 2012 and published on their webpage. [2] Their protocol was to rank the top 25 teams by record and accomplishments each week starting with week 10. For teams with similar records, their protocol established the following tie breakers: -Strength of Schedule -Head-to-head competition -Championships won -Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory) -Relevant factors such as key injuries that may affect team performance By the final week, only FSU remained undefeated. They had been ranked in the top four in every poll/ranking since week 2 (including all preceding CFPSC rankings). They entered the CFPSC ranking at #2 because they had won every game since a loss to #6 ranked Florida team in 2012; a college football championship victory bridging two undefeated seasons. It"s conceivable that their record alone would qualify them above TCU with one loss. However, when you marry their unique record with the fact that their strength of schedule [3] was far superior and their advantage of being the ACC champion, we see that there was really no chance of TCU beating out FSU in a playoff spot. For completion, I"ll outline why the CFPSC left TCU out of the playoffs completely. After the final week, Alabama, Oregon, Florida State, Ohio State, Baylor, and TCU rounded out the top 6 teams, the only teams with 1 loss or less. With FSU taking one of the playoff spots available due to the reasoning provided herein, there were 3 spots left. Alabama and Oregon, each conference champions, had an impressive strength of schedule (top 25). That left one spot to be filled with either OSU, Baylor, or TCU. There was no possible way TCU would be chosen over Baylor for the last spot, since their head-to-head record was a significant advantage for Baylor. This left the final playoff spot to be filled with either Baylor or OSU. OSU was a conference champion and also edged out Baylor by a bit on strength of schedule. On top of this, during the final game OSU had an impressive 0-59 win against #13 Wisconsin while Baylor had a mediocre win over #9 Kansas State. Among other things, this proved to quell some of the concern that the CFPSC had about the OSU QB situation. Thanks for a great debate. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.collegefootballplayoff.com... [3] http://espn.go.com...
TCU got scammed

Thank you for accepting zeno. Before I begin, I'd like to state that I'm not a TCU fan (Penn State fan here) but I believe it should be playing in the Rose Bowl rather than FSU. Out of the 4 teams in the playoff, FSU doesn't belong. (although 13-0 is impressive) Its schedule wasn't tough compared to Oregon, Alabama and OSU. FSU faced one top ten team. TCU had 3. (At the time for both) TCU went 2/3 and very close on the loss to Baylor. Also, TCU, in its bowl game, almost shut out a top 10 SEC Ole Miss team. When FSU faced another top ten team (well this time, top 5) they got killed. Now the same could have happened to TCU had they played in the Rose Bowl but TCU had a resume than FSU. Evidence for this is in previous paragraph. The ACC for the most part isn't that good and neither is the Big 12 anymore but the Big 12 is better than the ACC.
Should Kid's in High school be Allowed to leave School during lunch

High school kids are still kids, as in not legal adults, most of them anyway so they don't really have the right to just leave. And to suggest that kids doing drugs and then coming back to school is not a big deal you are being ridiculous. If you want to buy some lunch then buy it before you come to school and heat it up in school. Schools are not going to risk liability just because students don't want to make their own lunch. Also if they did allow this to happen then it would lead to a collapse of the school lunch programs because if all the students could leave then most would no longer buy lunch at school making it no longer economically viable to continue but the poor students that need government subsidized meal plans cannot afford to have this taken away.
The foreign language options in High Schools should not include French

Rebuttal: I do not deny that there are people who would learn Mandarin, Arabic, Persian, or Urdu. However, the number of students that would sign up to take these languages is extremely small compared to French, which is much easier for English speakers to learn. The large majority of students take Spanish because it is considered very easy to learn and is the second most commonly spoken language in the United States. In any case, as I said before students are not taught a language with the intent that they will later use it in their day-to-day lives. The number of aspiring Arab-English translators is rather small and they will probably pursue higher education (nearly all large universities offer some if not all of the languages you mentioned). The purpose of learning a language is not to communicate with native speakers, nor is it to get a job communicating with native speakers. It s for the educational experience of learning a language. As such, as many languages as possible should be offered to increase students' opportunities. Given limited resources, French should remain on the list because of its popularity and the fact that it is considered slightly challenging but not too difficult. Mandarin, Arabic, Persian, and Urdu are comparatively less popular and require a higher caliber student for equal results, so they would be preferred less than French. However, if possible all of these languages should be offered.
The foreign language options in High Schools should not include French

It is very useless to learn French as there are very few native speakers in the US. There actually are dedicated people wanting to learn Mandarin, the worlds most spoken language. French is no where at the top of the list. Learning Mandarin, Arabic, Persian, Urdu are far more useful. As you may know there are no oppurtunities for jobs in France. In China there is a huge job market. In Dubai there are many opportunities. The tech industry is in demand for Indian workers. Dari and Pashto is needed for translating jobs in Afghanistan which are in demand and pay well over $150k the first year just for knowing a language. French is useless.
The foreign language options in High Schools should not include French

I think his position reflects a misguided perspective on the purpose of education as a whole. I am going to assume we are talking about high schools in the United States. Let me first address the claims made by my opponent in the first round: "French is no longer a "second language" to most nations and definitely not in the United States. " French never was a "second language" in the United States. However, it is the official language of 29 countries. In any case, I do not believe that this effects whether or not it should be offered. "There are so many more useful languages to teach students, French is just a waste of education money going to the teachers. " Care to name some more usefully languages to teach students? I'm sure there are many, but I doubt there are so many that teaching French no longer a viable option. Certainly Spanish, Italian, German, Chinese, and Japanese are all good options, but there are only 5 of these and most high school students probably do not have the commitment to learn Chinese or Japanese. Also, every high school that I have encountered has been extremely inept with spending and budgeting and firing French teachers to save money would be very far down on the list of good cost-saving ideas. Now a few points of my own: C1: Schools should seek to offer as many languages as possible. Cornell University is considered one of the best universities in the United States and it offers 52 languages. Harvard University offers more than 80 languages. The reason for this is simply: offering more languages increases the education options and opportunities for students. These universities offer as many languages as it is reasonable to do within their resources and high schools should do the same. Of course, it is not possible for high schools to offer 80 languages, but they should offer as many as possible. As I said before, I doubt French would be very far down the list of languages to pick. C2: The purpose of using a language is not necessarily to speak it. The experience of learning the language is often far more important. While learning French, students improve their ability to understand grammatical concepts, vocalize unfamiliar sounds, and memorize new terms and ideas. This is beneficial to their education overall.
Water Boarding is Terrorism.

You are not actually "underneath a wave of water", in fact water is poured onto a towel placed on your face, which creates the feeling of drowning which in turn causes the body to react, naturally. Yes I know what violence is, I also know that blowing up buildings, the use of IED's (improvised explosive device) to kill innocent non-combatants, beheading's, and suicide bombings are actual violent acts that when performed as planned, will kill those targeted. There are no sources containing information from those who have died from waterboarding (because you are not actually drowned, only simulated) making this an extremely useful non-violent way to get crucial information. The pouring of water is nether swift or intense. The gagging (you are not actually throwing up) that occurs during waterboarding is the reaction to water being simulated down your throat, nothing actually goes down your throat, your mind only thinks it is and reacts. Bodily reactions are not terrorism.
Water Boarding is Terrorism.

I feel very sorry for you if you do not consider being underneath a wave of water, believing that you are drowning, and gaging while underwater violent. Violence - 1. swift and intense force 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment The wave of water is the swift and intense force. Actually being under the water after a wave covers you is also swift and intense force. Gaging, underwater or above water, is the rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment definition. Gaging is pretty rough and definitely physical. If the terrorist refuses to give information, they may gag multiple times. Everybody knows that after you gag up everything you have, theres nothing left to throw up, therefore resulting in a dry heave. Dry heaving is extremely rough. . http://dictionary.reference.com... I proved my case to the greatest extent.
Water Boarding is Terrorism.

My opponent has asked me to explain to him how waterboarding is NOT terrorism. His definition of terrorism states, that terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. Waterboarding is the physical experience of being underneath a wave of water, the person's mind believes he is drowning, and his gag reflex kicks in as if he were choking on all that water falling on his face. There is no violence, or threats, just the natural bodily function to react to a situation of drowning. In many setups of waterboarding no water ever even enters the mouth or nose of the one being interrogated. It is an extremely useful method that does not use bodily pain or violence to retain information that can be crucial towards preventing ACTUAL terrorism (you know like blowing up buildings) and intelligence for our troops. Waterboarding is NOT terrorism because it is a controlled non-violent source of information through creative interrogation.
i will get the fewest points in this debate

My opponent argues that she will get the fewest points in this debate. My case lies in the fact that it is impossible for my opponent to win via number of votes while still being correct. If I get more votes than my opponent, then I win by number of votes, even though she is correct. If my opponent gets more votes than I, then she is incorrect, which means that anyone voting in that fashion would immediately have to change their vote in order to have voted correctly. My opponent's case is an impossible, fallacious one. Therefore, I win.
i will get the fewest points in this debate

i will get the fewest votes in this debate.when the poll shows that i got the fewest votes.... my affirmation will be affirmed. that means that i really won this debate even if i got the fewest votes.when mostpeopleare voting against me, that could only mean that the voter participating in voting against me, is contradicting himself. that is, i will have won the debate so how can you be voting agaisnt me?so is the only way to ensure that you are in the right as a voter, is to vote "pro"?votewisely.
Prop 56

I agree with what the pro side says. "They say prop 56, a $2 on cigarettes is bad because most of the money won't go to helping people stop smoking. " As the pro side has not defined prop 56, let me clarify what it means, from the California state, "Proposition 56 would increase the tobacco tax by $2.00, bringing the total tobacco tax up to $2.87 per pack of cigarettes. The tobacco tax would be levied on other tobacco products and e-cigarettes as well. Revenue from the additional $2.00 tax would be allocated to physician training, prevention and treatment of dental diseases, Medi-Cal, tobacco-use prevention, research into cancer, heart and lung diseases, and other tobacco-related diseases, and school programs focusing on tobacco-use prevention and reduction. "The Pro Side also contradicts themselves, saying that the cost will make people quit, and that prop 56 will not go to help people stop smoking. Now the main reason as to why you should vote con and negate the resolution is because:Prop 56 is a $1.4 billion tax hike grab by insurance companies and other wealthy special interests to dramatically increase their profits by shortchanging schools and ignoring other pressing problems. Also, this tax act cheats schools as well. Almost all of the 43% of taxes go to educational schools, but prop 52 is written specifically to circumvent this.
CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified

My opponent, unfortunately, does not seem to understand how ethical debates work. Either that, or he has deliberately derailed this debate in an attempt to capitalise on what he believes to be a tactical error on my part. If it is the former, then I will take this opportunity to rebut him. If it is the latter, then I will show how he is wrong to take the approach that he has. Yes, he has chosen his own morality. That much was clear the moment that he took the CON side of this debate. Yes, I have my own morality - that much was obvious when I set up this debate, such that I was the PRO side of this debate. According to my opponent, I "cannot argue against [his morality] because [I] did not set up parameters in regards to morality." This is simply not the case. Indeed, to support his point he quoted the very part of my Round 2 where I said that: "It is equally possible for us to argue _between_ modes of morality." This sets up a clear parameter for debate: we can debate between our moral frameworks in order to determine which one is correct. I gave an example of this in Round 2 where, on debate.org itself, the resolution was: "Objectivism fails to describe an adequate meta-ethical answer for the is-ought problem." [1] Clearly the only way to have such a debate is to engage in meta-ethics: a discussion between moral frameworks to determine which framework is correct. In this instance, my moral framework leads me to the conclusion that CCTV cameras are morally justified; his does not. Therefore, the point of this debate is to see whose position on this issue is correct, and which one should be accepted. Indeed, I clarified this point even further when I said that: "...my opponent has two possible avenues of attack in this debate. He can either accept my premises/assumptions and then attack my conclusion ("debating through the same mode of morality") or he can argue that my premises/assumptions themselves are flawed ("debating between modes of morality")." [Round 2, Pro] In conclusion, I set up clear parameters for moral debate, and a methodology by which we could determine whose moral position is correct. In my substantive, I proceeded to provide argumentation for my framework, and against my opponent's. Until he extends my arguments and provides substantive material and/or rebuttal of his own, thereby making any attempt to rebut my challenge on his morality, I win by default. Thank you. Source: [1] http://www.debate.org...
CCTV cameras in public places are morally justified

My opponent wrote the following: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***********************"As with most ethical debates, I am arguing what I believe, and nothing more. Were the resolution to say, "Christians should accept the need for CCTV cameras", or "There is room in Satanic morality for CCTV", then clearly I would be arguing within a certain framework, and my opponent by implication would be as well. The resolution in fact doesn't say anything like this, and so my opponent is free to challenge my argument however he wants. "Assuming what is right or wrong is subjective, we must both debate through the eyes of the same specific mode of morality." No, we don't. It is equally possible for us to argue _between_ modes of morality. One of many examples of this happening on this very website can be found here: http://www.debate.org....... Indeed, the entire point of meta-ethics is to debate between alternative ethical theories to see which (if any) are successful."***************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since there are no parameters in regards to morality, then I can use any form of morality in my argument. This is true because my opponent wrote the following: "No, we don't. It is equally possible for us to argue_between_modes of morality." I choose to use my own morality. Based on my own morality, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. My opponent cannot argue against this because my opponent did not set up parameters in regards to morality. Therefore, CCTV cameras in public places are NOT morally justified. Thank you.