BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Veganism

What I meant when I said that "Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet" is that all of the hatred in the world comes from species ism. I'm aware that that is a bold claim, but think about it. As children, the first form of hate we are exposed to is when we eat the corpse of a once living being. We are taught to love the puppy and to eat the cow. That is where we learn to discriminate. If we raised a vegan generation, they would treat each other with respect because they treat ALL sentient beings with respect. As for the Mongolians, I would say that eating meat to not starve is okay. It's a form of self defense. But they need to work on making their economy better until they can import plant based food and it needs to happen fast. Meat eaters have no consideration for ANY animals besides their pets. There may be exceptions, but for the most part they think that the taste of bacon is more important then the pig's life. Again, an evil and selfish way to live. Also, humans are biologically herbivores. Starting with our teeth. While we do have canines, so do gorillas and they eat only plants. Our jaws also move side to side in a grinding motion like a cow. Dogs and other carnivores can't do that. They rip and swallow their food. We also have no claws like land bases carnivores always have. Men have nipples without breastfeeding, and we have canines without naturally eating meat. Second, our intestines are the right length in relation to our torso to be a herbivore. Third, we have no carnivorous instincts. Most people can't watch slaughterhouse videos like the one I posted above. A bear, being a true carnivore would love to be IN the slaughterhouse. Many humans, who call themselves carnivores can't stand the sight of blood. Many slaughterhouse workers get PTSD. That says a lot about our instincts and about ethics. tytheguy made a comment about humans eating meat since the dawn of man. He's right, but our early ancestors did it to survive. They had no choice. In the 21st century we do it because it tastes good. There is a huge difference.
Veganism

Please explain the statement and define the terms used in your statement of "Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet." Also, What alternative might you suggest for people that cannot reach their dietary needs from eating plants alone in their part of the world? For example, the typical Mongolians diet consists almost entirely of meat and dairy because agriculture is not sustainable in their region. Would it be a better alternative to let the majority of the Mongolian population to starve to death? You also have stated that "meat, dairy and egg eaters don't care about animals". "Animal" is such a broad category, are you only talking about animals that humans typically eat? or animals in general? I would like to know what "animals" are being debated here. I look forward to debating you.
Veganism

Lets get something straight. There is something seriously wrong with our society. We have actually turned animals, that think and feel, into sandwiches and coats. What is wrong with us. Good people follow the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Animals qualify as others. They do because they feel like we do. Pain, fear, grief etc. Meat, dairy and egg eaters don't care about animals. They don't care about what pain they cause on others. As long as they get their bacon, they are fine with animal abuse. They make the same excuses that Nazi's and slave owners made. They say that just because someone is different, they are inferior. That type of mentality is evil. pure evil. Nothing justifies the meat and dairy industry. The people who do this are not evil at heart. They have just been raised in an evil society. Think about the life of a dairy cow for example. Lets call her Jane. At birth, Jane is instantly taken from her mother, and imprisoned on a farm where she is fed a nutrition devoid diet. Eventually, she is tortured via branding. (Yes, applying hot metal to a living being is torture). She also has her ear clipped without painkiller for the sake of identification. Jane then lives an exhausting life. She is constantly milked for hours on end. She is also raped with bull semen to produce more calves that will be stolen from her. Stress takes a toll on her. After a few years, her productivity begins to decrease. She is then put on a cattle car and begins a miserable trip to a slaughterhouse. At the slaughterhouse, Jane and her friends are so scared they won't get off the truck. They know what's coming. Their not stupid. the slaughterhouse workers then use cattle prods to force them into the facility where they will each wait for their turn on the killing floor. Once there, Jane will receive a captive bolt to the head. It's supposed to render her nerves inert but almost always the cows are killed fully feeling and conscious. She is then hung upside down on a large machine and a slaughterhouse worked slashes her throat and waits for her to bleed to death. After that, Jane is sent to be butchered packaged and shipped to a store or restaurant. Jane experienced all of that so that we humans can enjoy the taste of cheese or steak. This is the worst holocaust that has ever happened. We slaughter 150 BILLION animals every year. Veganism is the only compassionate way to live on this planet. Forget the lies and propaganda from the meat and dairy industry. They want money. They don't care about the animals. There is no excuse for this. Don't even get me started on the health and environmental damage from meat, dairy and eggs. http://www.adaptt.org... Feel free to explore that site.
The U.S. Military should enforce a draft

Having citizens fight for their freedom is a great way to make them appreciate it. This isn't taking away their freedom, it just presents them with an opportunity to pay back their country. In recent years, the United States has not experienced grand scale conflicts. We've had small scale conflicts, mostly in the Middle East. It's not known that if the amount of troops we're using now would be effective on a larger scale conflict. Joining the military for 2 years would be a free job. They would get military pay for the time they wish to serve, and when their done in the military, they will receive civilian pay when they have served their time. You have also yet to address the fact that military experience can improve people who wish to run for president. They would have a first hand experience of how the military works, which would make them a better commander in chief. You have also not addressed the fact that the military offers many benefits. As listed before, GI Bill, Tuition Assistance, Service-member Opportunity Colleges, Education on Duty, etc.
The U.S. Military should enforce a draft

"We wouldn't be limiting freedom. " a draft would be forcing a person to give up two years of their life without any say in it. their is no freedom in that. The size of the military, although helpful, does not play a big enough role in modern conflict. It used to matter in trench warfare because teach side used to keep throwing men at each other until one gave up. but with more modern tactics and technology has cut the number of soldiers needed to win a war. when compared together percents mean nothing. if the same amount of men fight each year but the population grows the percent will shrink. the way you find a percent is X/Y if X goes up and y stays the same then the over all fraction will grow, but in this case Y is going up and X is staying the same the percent declines. of course because population is an irregular thing it fluctuates causing both example A and example B to occur. you said joining the military would be " giving citizens a free job." this is incorrect. drafting would be forcing citizens into a job. the average pay for americans is about 44,00 dollars compared to the 43,000 dollars a soldier is payed. these soldiers sacrifice their life and the us government can put a price on that? oh yah it's 43,000 dollars
The U.S. Military should enforce a draft

We wouldn't be limiting freedom. Citizens would have to serve 2 years. After that, they can do any occupation they want. They would also get paid in the military, giving citizens a free job. All the citizens wold also receive all benefits that come with joining the military. Such as, GI Bill, Tuition Assistance, Service-member Opportunity Colleges, Education on Duty, etc. An occupation in the military can also build character. This will assist people who want to work in the civilian world after their military occupation. Also, the military would always need strong manpower. Manpower is irreplaceable. Machines can malfunction. Non-manned drones can also be very costly. As of right now, the United States has gotten involved with most foreign conflict. It would be a good idea to have a large military so we would not be weakened if any large and powerful country would to start conflict. A very low percentage of citizens joining the military shows that citizens are ready exploit the countries benefits and advantages, but don't want to defend it. If citizens wish to get the benefits of being a citizen, they should protect the country and all it's benefits. Sources: . http://www.military.com...
The U.S. Military should enforce a draft

I want to start by saying i'm really excited to be debating against you. I don't know much about U.S government policy but I will try my best to research and get my point through thank you. a quote from the United states national anthem. "O'er the land of the free..." lets think about it. if the land of the free took away or even abridged the freedom to decline military enrollment it would not be so free now, would it? "less than .5% of people in the U.S. serve in the military. That's compared to the 12% in WWII. " you have just compared a time with very little war going on to a time when the whole world was fighting. also now day's we specific non manned drones which decline the need of humans. in 1939 when world war 2 started the us had around 130 million citizens. 12 percent of that comes out to an outstanding 15,708,000 now the usa has a population of 318.9 million and 5 percent of that is 15,945,000. their are more people joining today then in 1939.
The U.S. Military should enforce a draft

I feel that the United States Military should enforce a draft during wartime. I feel that every U.S. citizen owes something to their country, and joining the armed forces is the way to fulfill this debt. Today, less than .5% of people in the U.S. serve in the military. That's compared to the 12% in WWII. Citizen would only have to serve a maximum of 2 years. That doesn't limit the freedom of citizens, while, at the same time, building strong armed forces. This would also give citizens a great experience. This would enhance their discipline, team working skills, and physical ability. Also, people who want to run for president would have a military experience, and that would make them a better commander in chief. Overall, a military draft would be beneficial to the United States and it's citizens. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com...
Soccer is more physical/popular than Football

Everyone always says that Football is way more physical than Soccer, but that is not true in many ways. First I want you to think about it like this. Football players wear a lot of padding all over there body and yes take some hard hits, but soccer gets the same amount if not strong amounts of hits to the body and they only have shin guards. Football player get hit and will be down for a little while before getting up but I know people ( me included) who played soccer with broken bones and wouldn't leave until the game was over. Another thing is that people say football is one of the most popular sports ever but if you look in most every country, they all play soccer more. For example Mexico plays a lot of soccer ( I should know I've been there) , Ireland, the continent Africa, everyone plays soccer. Soccer is also very popular in America as well but since America has many different ethnics and cultures we tend to go to the less traditional and everyone plays all different kinds of sports.
Soccer is more physical/popular than Football

My logic follows Football and soccer are the same thing, therefore the same thing cannot be more physical/popular. Definition of football: A game in which two opposing teams of 11 players each defend goals at opposite ends of a field having goal posts at each end, with points being scored chiefly by carrying the ball across the opponent's goal line and by place-kicking or drop-kicking the ball over the crossbar between the opponent's goal posts.] Definition of soccer: A form of football played between two teams of 11 players, in which the ball may be advanced by kicking or by bouncing it off any part of the body but the arms and hands, except in the case of the goalkeepers, who may use their hands to catch, carry, throw, or stop the ball. The two definitions are the same. Football is also more commonly referred to soccer worldwide
Trump being president is better than Hillary being president

Oh. Well, that's nice. Terrific. Yes, this was a bad idea from Hillary, but she said it would only come about after extensive negotiations. It was a weak answer that wouldn't have ever taken place. Does it speak against her as a president? Most definitely. But does it outweigh all the horrible things about Trump? Not even slightly. This was a bad idea that would never occur, and even then you're exaggerating how bad an idea it is. Sure, taking the airspace would result in war. But Clinton's plan of negotiations first would just've failed and not led to war, and does not even slightly compare to all of Trump's ridiculous plans. Has Hillary flipflopped? To a degree. But so do most politicians. As public views changed, so did hers. At one point, she was against gay marriage. Tell me, is it so hard to believe that she, like most people in the US, has changed her mind? Is the ability to change your mind, as well as to represent the changing views of the people, not essential in a politician compared to dull, unchanging dedication to outdated ideas? Hell, Trump's flip-flopped on many issues to a huge degree like the Iraq War, and on other issues rather than admit he was mistaken like when shown how ridiculous the wall concept was, he didn't flip-flopped, but remained ignorant and ignored evidence. Is that what you'd prefer in a president? I would surely hope not. No, I get it. No bother, I think most people are on here for fun.
Trump being president is better than Hillary being president

Okay, so I'm going to move on to different points because you debunked all of my points. So, let me explain the whole "no-fly zone." Hillary said that she wanted a no-fly zone on Syria and Russia. However, in late September, 2016, US Marine Corps General Joseph Francis Dunford said that " to control all of the air space in Syria would require us to go to war." This is something Hillary wanted since 2013 (3 years). When I said that I would rather have an idiot rather than a person who illegibly wants war, that's what I meant. Also, if you have your doubts on Joseph Dunford, the man knows what he's talking about. Also, something about Hillary is he inconsistency. She has flip flopped through so many things. She voted for the Iraq war, but then was against it. She was for NAFTA, but was against it. She was for the Keystone XL Pipeline, but then was against it. Are you seeing a pattern, yet? She's even change her mind on gay marriage. Her response to whenever she's called out on this is "New information has come to light..." Like, what new information made you change your mind on gay marriage. Imagine how it would be with a very inconsistent president. Anyways, good debate. I hope you don't see me as a Trump fan who can't argue against someone with a different opinion. In fact, I don't even like politics, I just did this for fun.
Trump being president is better than Hillary being president

What exactly is your point on the marriage to Bill Clinton? Yes, I imagine her being the First Lady would also contribute to her being a more experienced president. How is that a slight against her? If anything, it's another plus. She's vastly more experienced seeing as Trump has no experience whatsoever and isn't even a good businessman due to all the businesses he's ran into the ground. That alone shows that there is no contest, and Clinton is the infinitely better choice. Sure, Clinton is playing the women card to a degree. But what's worse. playing the women card, or acting in a way that offends these massive communities of the Disabled, the Hispanic, the Muslims and Women in general? That's a majority of Americans. Sure, Clinton's by no means perfect in this field, but she is infinitely better than Trump. Sure, politicians can get into office and find what they promised is unfeasible. But their campaign promises still show what direction they're going to go. Trump's all show he's going to go in a terrible direction that will fail disastrously. Will he get the wall built? Probably not. But either he's lying completely about which direction he wants to take the country, in which case he's a manipulative liar who cannot be trusted, which is unlikely, or he has no idea what he's doing and his biggest platform is a clear failure. In response to your comment on the limited power of the president, so what? Your defense of the candidate is that he doesn't have the power to do the awful things he wants? Yeah, realistically, he doesn't. But he has the power to make great strides in those directions. All you're doing is limiting the damage he'd cause, not showing how Clinton is in any way a worse candidate. You're acknowledging that yes, Trump is an idiot with awful plans, but he won't cause too much damage. While I appreciate the optimism, that seems to be a point in my favor. Clinton does not want war. The "no fly zone" comment is admittedly not the best plan forward with the Syrian Crisis, but it will most certainly not cause a war. She's said that it's only a possibility and wasn't like the Wall a major campaign promise. She said that she wants major negotiations before anything like this would come about. To say she wants war is incorrect and an uninformed statement to make. You admit throughout your argument that Trump is an idiot, that he's offended massive communities and that his policies are miserable. In return, you've only managed to slight Hillary to a minor degree.
Trump being president is better than Hillary being president

Firstly, good luck to you, too. Secondly, yes, Clinton has more experience under her belt, but some of that comes from the fact that she's married to Bill Clinton. Now, while that may seem like anything special, you'd think Hillary would get some knowledge off of him being president. Third, while yes, Trump came off as someone who doesn't like these certain group of people, keep in mind that there were some times where she would say "we never had a woman president, before" kind of implying that she's using that as a way to get more people to vote for her. Fourth, while what Trump wants to do sounds stupid, keep in mind that its the presidential elections. People would say anything to get to be president. For example, when Obama was running for president, he said he would bring the soldiers in Iraq back. However, when he got into office, he didn't. Also, I don't think Trump has the ability to kick out a certain group of people just because he doesn't like them. Finally, your choices for president is an idiot (Trump) or someone who wants war (Clinton). I'd rather have someone who would be an endangerment to their surroundings than a person who's going to cause damage to the would.
Trump being president is better than Hillary being president

Trump being president is better than Hillary being president. For starters, Hillary wanted a "no-fly zone." Which means war. So, she wanted a no-fly zone on Syria and Russia. In reaction to this, a lot of people disagree with this, including Trump. In fact, because of this, Hillary made Trump sound reasonable. Also, the whole "I'm going to build a wall and kick out all Mexicans," thing is bs.
Quotation Philosopher Debate - Utilitarianism (pro) vs. Deontology (con)

Thank you Surrealism for instigating this debate, I'm looking forward to it :) As I am doing deontology, it makes sense for me to choose Immanuel Kant as my most important philosopher considering he has written groundwork for the deontology that has developed since Kant has written. However, in round three I will use other deontologists such as W.D Ross, Aquinas, Frances Kamm among others. I accept :)
Quotation Philosopher Debate - Utilitarianism (pro) vs. Deontology (con)

This is just a little experiment I'd like to try out. The essence of this is that it is a "quatation debate" meaning that we will debate the topic, in this case Utilitarianism vs. Deontology, using only quotations from the relevant philosophers. Rebuttals will be less important here, as we will be mostly trying to build our case better than our opponent. That is why there are only three rounds. Round One - Acceptance and state your most important philosopher.
Creationism Is Not Necessarily Restricted to Christianity

But frankly, I was hoping an atheist who opposes creationism would take up this debate. I am actually arguing in favor of teaching creationism in schools. You see, one reason given by atheists to why creationism should not be taught in schools is that it would be "forcing Christianity" on the students. I'm arguing that since it's not necessarily Christianity-exclusive, teaching creationism in schools would not be showing favoritism towards any religion.
good is evil and evil is good. humanity is justified by equilibrium. animals does not WHY

you tried to Justify your reasoning about how depress or how irregular my questions are by saying that such questions are improper or that they are written badly is proof enough to show that people have a superiority complex. i thank you for answering them all the best you know how as you say they are harsh and depressing questions but it because life is harsh and depressing. humanity is knowledge itself there is no evil in animals but humans are born as such which means there is spiritual beings such as demons and angles or what ever you would like to call them because humanity is the proof of a soul which animals does not have. if there is no good there is no evil, no humans equals peace
good is evil and evil is good. humanity is justified by equilibrium. animals does not WHY

Order and Religion is the true wrong and absolute chaos is the true right. We humans are born evil and most people are blissfully ignorant of this fact of abomination. We try to make up for our greed by greedily pleasuring ourselves with kindness for in hope to be paid back in heaven someday. Humans why do we exist and does life not care what or how we live it? or is it just coincidence we are alive to began with and there is no supreme laws? All this is just speculation and cant be answered properly but humanity does have a right to defend itself does it not? if god is jealous why cant man be jealous of god? is being human a controdictory? yes or no
good is evil and evil is good. humanity is justified by equilibrium. animals does not WHY

Several religions do not hint at an afterlife. If it is our nature to be evil, what do you mean by "greedily pleasuring ourselves with kindness " most people hope to get in heaven so most of the niceties that they do is because of this fact and not truly because they are actually kind anyways we are born both good and evil i didnt mean to say all evil and souls are actually spiritual to say angels and demons arent spirits is like saying people in the past didnt suffer for such acts like witchcraft or being vampires as in history books people burned witches and staked vampires anyways the harshness of life make comfort a reality so idk if it technically good to say bad is absolute wrong in a world were our entire existence rely on both all i know to the reasons to life is that to live