BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Children in the US should be exposed and encouraged to eat insects

My debate will flow as follows: 1. Stigma against insect eating will make it unlikely to be popular. 2. Insects do not meet high food standards in the US. 1. Stima against insect eating will make it unlikely to be popular The con takes most of their argument to speaking of the stigma that many Americans face when being told to eat insects. This is why children are the ones being indoctrinated, not the adults. In addition, much of their foods will not have to have insects visible as shown in source 1 of this round. This is merely one example, others have been "Chirp Chips" and Cricket Cookies like those found in the sixfoods source. As children consume these products, generally at lunches and teachers in the classroom explain and indoctrinate them in to this idea, they will discover the difference between "good" and "bad" insects (FAO). Even if it fails for several generations, each generation will have more experience and comfort with the idea, creating a loop of increasing effectiveness. 2. Insects do not meet high food standards in the US Insects are not banned for consumption by the Food and Drug Administration. Therefore, all insects sold for the purposes of consumption are legal so long as they fit the rules imposed by the FDA. You will find MarxFoods to be an example of this. Their place of business is in Seattle, Washington. They also sell various insects there. As they label these insects for human consumption, the full extent of US policy in relation to food safety is applied to MarxFoods. Because they are still selling insect products, it is obvious that insects can and do meet the high food standards of Americans. - Lastly, the con has failed to address my point on population strain so that extends to this argument. Sources: http://www.cbc.ca...http://sixfoods.com...http://www.marxfoods.com...
Children in the US should be exposed and encouraged to eat insects

Thank you for your clear definitions on the following words, which will be a great help to me as well as the community. I shall continue with my argument. The USA is a modern country with heavily urbanized cities, as well as farms supporting these cities. While third world countries are sadly having problems such as overpopulation as well as food shortages, it is the opposite in the US. The US has the highest percentage of obese people, which clearly shows that most of the people, if not all, have more than enough, which they could had donated to the more needy. With the vast amount of food resources existent in the US, it is not needed for the cultivation or import of worms or insects for consumption. Secondly, while I agree that worms and insects do have a very high nutritional value, due to the high standards of food in the US, there are very few people that are willing to eat worms and insects for the sake of nutrition, as there are foods, while not as nutritious as worms or insects, they are much more considered as proper foods to the American people. If adults themselves do not even have the courage to eat worms and insects which are considered revolting to them, what would the overwhelming majority of the American children think about eating such an unaccustomed meal? Even foodstuff that have a small percentage of nutrients from worms and insects are shunned at first sight. Unfortunately, while scientifically worms and insects are proved to have a high nutritional value, the American people are now used to foods that are both delicious whether nutritious or not, and though I too would prefer that US children would try such foods as an everyday diet, but it is not possible at all. Not in this day and age.
Children in the US should be exposed and encouraged to eat insects

Rules of the debate are as follows: 1. Round one is used for acceptance only. 2. Rounds two and three are good for debate. 3. Round four is for conclusions and any final comments that do not add arguments. 4. Any questions should be deferred to the comments section just for clarity. 5. Use sources to back up your points. Objective logic and deductive reasoning do not have to have sources but factual evidence needs to be linked. 6. I understand that English is not the universal first language. However, please try to break your arguments up in to paragraphs for readability. 7. There is a 10,000 character limit and 72 hour response times. You are not expected to fill the character limit but it's there if you feel the need to use longer arguments. And that's it. Good luck to whoever takes this on, I have wanted to debate this topic for awhile.
Astrology should be recognized as a science.

My opponent correctly says that the more you flip the coin, the more these factors are reduced. However, oddly enough the less and less likely it get that you will actually 50/50. But really, the point was not to come up with some number, but to express that randomness does not always (and in fact rarely) ends up directly to the original chances. In regards to the fact that more babies are born in August than any other month. My opponent states that since the sampling was not of just august babies, that it doesn't matter. It actually does. For simplicity, I'm only going to divide the year up into 2 seasons (of equal length), hot and cold, though the principle behind this still applies if you divide the year into months, into astrological signs, or even down to every second of the year. If 3/4 of people are born in the hot season (so 1/4 are born in the cold season) and 3/4 of injuries occur in the hot season (so 1/4 of the hurt in the cold). We will see that statisitcally, people hurt in the same season that they are born is greater than people hurt in the opposite season they are born. Here is the math. People born in hot (3/4) and hurt in hot (3/4) = 3/4 * 3/4 = 9/16 People born in hot (3/4) and hurt in cold (1/4) = 3/4 * 1/4 = 3/16 People born in cold (1/4) and hurt in hot (3/4) = 1/4 * 3/4 = 3/16 People born in cold (1/4) and hurt in cold (1/4) = 1/4 * 1/4 = 1/16 So people that are hurt in the same season they are born (hot in hot and cold in cold) = 10/16 And people that are hurt in the opposite season that they are born (hot in cold and cold in hot) = 6/16 As you can see, you are 67% more likely to hurt yourself in the season you are born than in the opposite season, based on pure statistical chance. Again, this works whichever way you divide it. So long as the birth rate and injury rate are not flat line, this variance will statistically occur. So all we need to do is find scientific reasons why people are born more in different months, and why people are injured more in different months. By showing that there is an increased risked in the months of of 0, 3, 6, and 9 related to the most common months, that shows that there will be a statistical skewing as observed. And it is nothing more than expected chance. "When Hawking proposed this theory, many refuted it because they could not understand how or why curved space fits into our universe. Refuting the theory on the basis that they cannot explain it is not progressive. " This is a combination of the Galileo fallacy and Appeal to Novelty fallacy. The truth is we should be skeptical of things that can't be explained. We should try to find a rational and scientific explination. That is the entire purpose of science, trying to explain the things going on around us. And from there, we should apply meta-science (the science of science) to try to explain why sciences work.
Astrology should be recognized as a science.

Science - "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. " [1] Legitimate - "Conforming to the law or to rules. " [2] In order for Astrology to be considered a "legitimate science" it must meet the definition of science, and conform to the rules of science. One of the key rules of science (which is sadly missed by many people now-a-days) is the correlation vs causation, which can be a logical fallacy (logical fallacies being unscientific). [3] Correlation is not scientific, causation is. If you find a correlation between two things, they are not necessiarily tied together (increased CO2 levels inverse to number of pirates in the seas). To make it to the realm of science, there must be a logical, scientific reason to leap to causation. I will pass this back to my opponent to give them a chance to scientifically show the causation of Astrology. [1] . http://www.google.com...= [2] . http://www.google.com...= [3] . http://www.jstor.org...
Astrology should be recognized as a science.

Claim: Astrology should be recognized as a legitimate science. First we need to define astrology. Astrology is NOT the same as the horoscopes you read in magazines which only go by the Sun sign. Astrology is a psychological tool that draws a chart including all planets (as well as Sun, Moon, and Pluto), 12 houses and 12 signs. Unfortunately, most people do not know enough about astrology to accept it as anything more than superstitious speculation. And what constitutes a science? A field of study that can be observed and tested in a concrete matter.
the sky is not blue

Hello, I will be arguing that the region of the atmosphere seen from the earth is a blue color.Evidence this is true: This is a picture taken over the pacific ocean. You can clearly see over and above the horizon an atomosphere which is commonly know as the "sky". In this photo, the sky is clearly blue in color. So, this should be evidence enough that the sky is blue regardless of the reflection of the ocean. You can actually look in the reflection in the ocean, and it actually reflects a blue sky unless it is very murky. Certain types of plankton and fishes "bioluminescence" are also responsible for the blue color of the ocean at times, but that is another topic on various colors of the ocean. The sky is made up of a variety of gaseous molecules and matter. It has a high content of oxygen, water, along with nitrogen, argon, and carbon dioxide. But the sky also has other particles. The general composition of the sky also depends on place, weather, time of day, and many other factors. Mars for example, has a pinkish sky because of the high content of iron particles in its thin atmosphere. A volcanic explosion, excessive dust, pollution, and fog are things that can change the composition of the sky or how the sky appears. The sky also changes its density depending on where you are in the sky. As an example, the sky is denser near the earths troposphere than it is in the vicinity of the exosphere.The reason our sky is blue is because rayleigh scattering. When the sunlight strikes air molecules, other particulates, water, and iceform clouds they are scattered in all different directions. Because blue light travels in shorter and smaller wave lengths than other light, the result is a blue sky. Obviously at night, when there is no sunlight, the sky is dark. To elaborate on the reason a sunset is red, is because the sunlight is traveling through more of the sky to reach our eyes. The red light is unscattered at that time of day because their long wavelengths. And clouds are white in color because the water droplets scatter all wavelengths of the spectrum equally. Similar to how lipids are responsible to much of the scattering within milk, giving it its white color.Take a look at the wavelengths of blue light:http://upload.wikimedia.org...Some links that will explain why our sky is blue (with pictures).http://www.sciencemadesimple.com...;http://spaceplace.nasa.gov...;I'm suprised my opponent made the debate 1 round, yet offered so little.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

I challenge my opponent to show the specific scriptures that call on believers to commit genocide and rape! Just making unfounded claims without any proof is not how debates work. Apparently, my opponent thinks that we don't need to back our claims with evidence. I claim that militant athiests are prone to commit mass murder. I guess I don't have to back that claim up with evidence. Furthermore, my opponent seems to think that the religions in question are to blame for the terrible actions that we as people commit on each other, not the individuals who carry out the crimes. My opponent seems to think that the words in the bible, or koran are somehow so hypnotic, that just the act of reading it can be so influential that it can cause believers to want to rape, torture and commit genocide in the name of the lord. Bull$hit!!! One thing that is actually destroying humanity is the idea that we can blame the authors of the books that the criminals read, not the criminals though. My opponents argument is rooted in a mistrust of freedom of speech, yet somehow leaves no room for placing blame where it's actually due! I wonder if my opponent has ever read a catcher in the rye. If so, if we use my opponents rational, we should consider my opponent to be a danger to society! How many people have you seen, rape, murder, or commit genocide in the name of Buddha? When was the last time someone shot up a mall in the name of Vishnu? My opponents argument is rooted in a deep seated hatred of all things religious, but is certainly not teeming with rational, or a commitment to freedom of expression!!! As an athiest, it's embarrassing to be associated with the knee jerk "rational" of militant athiests who have no depth! I counter my opponents claim with one of my own. Obtuse rationality is destroying humanity, not religion!!
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

Mmmm mmm, that retort was scrumptious. I just ate it all up like pringles. However, one thing that seems to have left a sour taste in my mouth was the lack of substance. My opponents argument is based on a few scriptures he got off a militant athiest site. I guess my opponent is expecting us to believe that just because some shady things are written in scripture, that must mean ALL religions are destroying humanity. There was no retort whatsoever that concerned the fact that Buddhists do not rape or murder or commit genocide in the name of Buddha. Still waiting to see if any Hindus start strapping themselves with dynamite. Why is it that what's written in the bible is supposedly destroying humanity, but what's written in the anarchist cookbook is somehow morally excusable? The anarchist cookbook was written by an athiest who wrote that is our civic duty to violently overthrow the American government. The perpetrators of the Columbine shooting had a copy of the anarchist cookbook. Timothy McVeigh admitted to studying the anarchist cookbook to learn how to build a bomb powerful enough to destroy an entire building. The writer has disavowed everything he wrote in the book, and is horrified by the amount of terror that was perpetrated by people who owned the anarchist cookbook. I would consider a book that encourages people to kill innocent civilians for the sake of "revolution" to be just as dangerous, if not, more so than anything written in scripture because the stuff written in the bible could be a manner of interpretation, whereas the anarchist cookbook is straightforwardly calling for spilling blood for the sake of causing terror. Again, I assert that if humanity is being destroyed, it's being done by terrible actions done by terribly misguided people. I think my opponent was going for "shock value" in the last argument by trying to offend me. Ouchee!! It reminds me of a bully I used to go to grade school with named Peter Pike. Petie would fly off the handle if someone disagreed with him, even if his views were terribly misguided. Ya, I would say backwardseden is a bully, just like Pete. Peter Pike turned out to be a pedophile. Ya, I guess he liked to touch kids, but your not like that, are you backwardseden?
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: The illusion of love.

"I challenge my opponent to show the specific scriptures that call on believers to commit genocide and rape!"Well yah didn't read the article properly did yah sport? The article starts out with stating "Many of our most revered religious texts have hundreds of verses where the deity of the story..." So working on that truth in that you obviously precious little about YOUR bible and clearly haven't read it, we shall go from there, K snookums who thinks he is so smort, sorry smart, but really isn't? Now I cannot state the verses at the character amount of 10,000 will run out. So you are going to have to look them up sparky - well that is if you feel like verifying the verses and please be---my---guest. Rape Numbers 31: 7-18, Deuteronomy 20: 10-14, Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 AS SHOWN in the article, Deuteronomy 22: 23-24, 2 Samuel 12: 11-14, Deuteronomy 21: 10-14, Zechariah 14: 1-2 Genocide Exodus 32: 27-28, Numbers 16: 46-49, Numbers 25: 1-11, Joshua 8: 1-25, Judges 1:4 Judges 8: 7-10, Judges 12: 3-6, Judges 15:14-15, Judges 16:27-30, 1 Samuel 4, 1 Samuel 6:19, 1 Kings 20: 28-29, 2 Kings 19: 35-37, 2 Chronicles 13 17-18 500,000!!!, 2 Chronicles 28:6, 2 Chronicles 14: 9-14 1,000,000!!! etc etc etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? Nope. Your idiotic challenge has been met because you know nothing about your so-called supreme deity. Btw, the rape verses were taken from evilbible.com who knows one helluva lot more about this subject than you ---ever--- will, and so do I. "Just making unfounded claims without any proof is not how debates work." OK smarty this debate is now at an end. It is so crystal clear that you put your head in a noose before you even knew what in the flying pregnant fetus screw you were squawking about and you cannot stand to be on the losing end. Well too bad. You got cooked as you learn how to fry and bake water in your battery powered easy bake oven. Idiots like you that cannot back up what they say AT ALL because they are the typical christian fodder that CAN'T READ as he easily holds his barf bag over his head to sneeze his cabbage batbrain out into an oozing goo. Yeah yah got slaughtered. Too bad that you don't like it. Deal with it. Your next argument, in which you don't have one will most certainly be ignored.
war on terrorism

My opponent's forfeiting of this final round, despite the fact that he was online several times since I posted my second round, leads me to believe that he has intentionally given up this debate. That in itself should count this as a win for me; but just for emphasis, I'll point out some key points about this debate: -My opponent was the instigator, yet he didn't offer any of his own points to the debate, or any support for anything he said. -My points were solid, and went mostly un-touched by my opponent. -My opponent used his second round (and his only post of any length at all) to make an appeal to popularity, several straw man arguments, and a reiteration of a non-resolutional point that I'd already conceded (that terrorism is a threat). -My opponent also used personal attacks, including the insinuation that I plagiarized, which I in no way did (and I'm sure you could verify that with a few google searches). -I refuted my opponent's attacks thoroughly, where they came anywhere near my case. I hope everyone votes based on the debate, rather than their knee-jerk reaction to the topic.
war on terrorism

First off I would like to say you are so far off base with EVERYONE even left-wing liberals. However I will go though and rebuke all of your points. 1.If you believe that the best way to deal with these terrorists is by using moderate muslims then you need to rethink your foreign policy. We need to fight our own battles and with our victories will come the hearts and minds of moderate muslims. The western world needs to deal with this problem, and they need to deal with it now. 2.I'm not sure what your saying but it sounds like we should sit back and wait for them to come to us. 3."These opposing ideologies must battle it out. The best we can do, as a nation, is to peacefully promote the side most of us believe in." So we need to battle it out but we have to fight peacefully. Next you'll say if we would just TALK to them. 4.Your basically saying we should concentrate on defense and not offence. If you didn't know you don't win wars like that. Right now we are fighting in the Middle East, so we're not fighting the war over here. 5.I am truly am deeply sorry about our fallen troops and are debt; however when you say "both human and monetary, are not worth it." Your saying freedom, democracy, and AMERICA are not worth fighting for. Extremists ARE a real threat to America and everything America stands for. I wish you could realize that they are a threat to everyone not just the people who support the war but everyone who does not believe in there radical Islam. PS: try not to copy and paste this time :) -Jake
I, Insanity, will win this debate.

Thank you for participating in this debate. I will begin by winning the debate. Firstly, You admit to being a madman. Let us begin by defining this word: A madman is a man who is insane. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) So, yes, being insane, you posses me, but you do not control me. In fact, it is I, Insanity, who makes you think and act in the way you do, therefore I actually control you. In this new light let us examine your opening statement. You say that: "You will not win this debate because I am God and I have altered fate to make you not win it." I have proved that I control you. Therefore, theoretically speaking, if you were God, then I would be in control of God. So if you are God, then I will win because I will make you allow me to win. Lastly, you have a win percentage rate of less than 50% (http://debate.org...) So statistically speaking, you are more likely to lose than win. In conclusion, I will win this debate.
I, Insanity, will win this debate.

You will not win this debate because I am God and I have altered fate to make you not win it. Everything you say from this point on is definitely, 100% my control for your 'free will' and if you debate is strong it is actually me debating for you thus even though you win the debate by content this overall debate you, mere mortal Insanity, will lose since you, Insanity are in fact a mere representation of me, RationalMadman but in a different brain and mindset. You are now officially possessed by me and if your debate is stronger I win, if my debate is stronger, I win. I am sorry to tell you that due to difficulty in predicting the Madman half of my persona I do not know WHO I will grant the more convincing arguments to that is yet to be found out by my Rational mind (which I am utilising at present) Thank you , good night and try trolling when I'm offline.xoxo -Gossip Girl http://www.youtube.com...
Latin

I apologize. I probably should have worded my initial argument differently. Although I can see and fully acknowledge that Latin is, in the literal sense of the word, a dead language, I believe that Latin still has great influence. As I probably should have stated initially, Latin is not an extinct language. As I stated in my previous argument, many modern languages are based off of, if not extensions of, ancient Latin, and Latin has great influence in Vatican City and the Catholic Religion. I am sorry for any confusion, and I do acknowledge that Latin is a dead language, though it is not yet extinct, nor do I think it will go extinct in the foreseeable future.