BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Veganism

I have no seen any proof that veganism is making an impact on meat companies, I asked many vegans over and over again when they try to say they are making a difference but never do I see proof of that. All I get them to say is "supply and demand" but that premise only works if enough people stop demanding which it seems they are not. Not because there can't be but because most people don't want to stop, if they don't want to stop eating meat then you will never get them to willfully stop demanding meat products. This precisely why I think not eating animal products to make change is a lost cause.
Veganism

I firmly support the very fact of veganism. Humans are said to be social animals but today because of all sorts of nonsense rampant around they are far from being called the same. we social, mortal human beings shall always look forward to some sort of humanity towards each organ of this ecosystem and the animals are a valuable part of it. we cannot separate mothers from new born babies, in other words we cannot hurt them just for the sheer benefit of hardly 5 minutes. after all if you want to have proteins from meat; all sorts of pulses are a great source of it. then why shall humanity be killed for our so - called benefit?
Veganism

I agree with the raised point of my opponent on the service of animals and I do believe that it is the base of "Veganism" however continuing killing of animals merely for meat purposes can no way support the con's statement of serving animals. How can one serve animals by continuing to kill them. We speak a lot of humanity, but, these are the times when our true so called humanity is revealed. I fail to understand, how can killing and serving go on together ..... a deep question ! I hope to have proved my point with numerous arguments. I thank the opponent for a well balanced debate on the topic. I look forward to many such good debates in future.
Year-Round Schooling

Great! Let's begin: I deny the definition of year-round schooling. Year- round- throughout the year http://dictionary.reference.com... Year- round schooling- Year-Round School is the scheduling of educational institutions so that students take class throughout the entire calendar year. A motivation is that higher student throughput is accomplished via more effective scheduling of school resources. http://www.google.com... As for the sources part, I believe that we may need sources to, perhaps, back up our arguments or counter arguments. Year- round schooling will cause stress, which is not helpful to students. http://www.debate.org... Summer gives a chance to relax and become social. Students would be able to develop relationships with their families. Students will also be able to have time to hang out with their friends, or come over to their friend's house to play a game. This proves that summer is essential to students and would relieve stress. Any more I need to add?
Communism is a bad form of government.

Communism is a terrible form of government. Rather than letting the ruled people make decisions, a ruler, who is often misinformed and cruel, does all. You cannot object to decisions by that ruler. Even a monarchy is better, such as what was in England, because there was a parliament, where SOME of the power was spread out to other people (though, admittedly, England was one of the better situations of that time, like the 1600s). As noted HERE <http://www.usatoday.com...;, people often get upset about their government and try to overthrow it. Many people die in such war, as well as the ruler killing those who oppose him. For example, MILLIONS of people died in China's cultural revolution. Such communist governments are often not aware of human rights. Take China, for instance: they have a TERRIBLE human rights' record. Pure communism often means that everyone gets the same things, like basic food, always. No matter how hard they work they get it. NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY WORK - there's no incentive there! I could be a lazy couch potato, and still get the same things as someone who worked VERY hard. That's how China was, until recently. The whole thing just fails in this way. Humans should be treated equally, but instead here all these poor people are crushed with extreme taxes that they are not allowed to object to, a ruler that is above everyone else, can do whatever he wants, and does not allow free speech. This is not even remotely close to equal! And of course, all those people live in fear, hating their government but unable to show it by fear of getting in major trouble with the government, perhaps killed! So you see, this is why communism is TERRIBLE! Such bad human rights, a cruel ruler that no one is allowed to object to, major bloody revolutions occurring because of it... I don't think that's what we need. I await my opponent's response. Side note: I am not in any way trying to be racist to Chinese, I am just using their government as an example (I am, in fact, partly Chinese myself).
Debate on Debate

These were my four main arguments: 1) Forums tend to invite spam, and people who don't really want to discuss the topics at hand. Having a one-on-one debate sets up conditions where both opponents are forced to address each other or lose. In a forum, if one says something stupid, they are drowned out and forgotten. However, with the debate format, it is blatantly obvious. 2) Debates encourage new ideas to be thought. Most instigators have a pretty good idea of what they want to discuss, already prepared for normal arguments. However, in a debate format, unveiling a completely new argument leaves the other opponent in a struggle. A debate format encourages better arguments. This is not so with forums. 3) Debates encourage people to check back. Often times in forums, you are not the sole leader, taking charge for your cause, and thus don't feel motivated to check back on your thread. However, in the debate format, if you don't check back, you'll lose! And it's true, there is a minority of debates where one of the opponents goes away, but it's very minimal to what happens in forums. 4) The format of a forum is not as readable to an audience. You'll see one user taking on another user, while at the same time in the same thread, three users are taking on another user, who is also taking on another user. Needless to say it can get confusing. However, a debate format, like the one we have now, is extremely easy to read. Someone who has never seen the site before can easily figure out that this is debate site where the pro and con take turns. And my opponent didn't even make an argument. Just a very unclear thesis. Voters, decide.
Debate on Debate

You're argument was quite vague in the way that the audience does not know exactly what you mean. In the next round, I'd love to hear to you elaborate exactly what you mean. However, for my turn right now, I'll assume you meant, "Forums are better than debates because of more understanding". I however, think this is false for a list of reasons. 1) Forums tend to invite spam, and people who don't really want to discuss the topics at hand. Having a one-on-one debate sets up conditions where both opponents are forced to address each other or lose. In a forum, if one says something stupid, they are drowned out and forgotten. However, with the debate format, it is blatantly obvious. 2) Debates encourage new ideas to be thought. Most instigators have a pretty good idea of what they want to discuss, already prepared for normal arguments. However, in a debate format, unveiling a completely new argument leaves the other opponent in a struggle. A debate format encourages better arguments. This is not so with forums. 3) Debates encourage people to check back. Often times in forums, you are not the sole leader, taking charge for your cause, and thus don't feel motivated to check back on your thread. However, in the debate format, if you don't check back, you'll lose! And it's true, there is a minority of debates where one of the opponents goes away, but it's very minimal to what happens in forums. 4) The format of a forum is not as readable to an audience. You'll see one user taking on another user, while at the same time in the same thread, three users are taking on another user, who is also taking on another user. Needless to say it can get confusing. However, a debate format, like the one we have now, is extremely easy to read. Someone who has never seen the site before can easily figure out that this is debate site where the pro and con take turns.
In crowded places, the obese should be made to walk in single file

You haven't been stuck behind a family with a few kids before have you? They can be just as bad as obese people if not worse. Also I myself have been stuck behind a group of people who just stand their and don't get out of anyone's way and expect everyone to go around them. It's not a supposed reason and I in now way think it's the only way people get obese. But I know a young man who is quite large and it is because of a medical condition he has and the medication he has to take. I think you missed the main point I was making with that statement which was if a law of some sought was passed to fine obese people for taking up to much room on a walk way, then how is it fair to those people who didn't make the choice to be obese but are obese due to a medical condition, even if it is only a small percentage of people who fall into this category. Also if a law of this sought was passed how on earth could it be enforced? The police already have a busy time as it is and have quite more pressing matters to deal with than going up to obese people on walkways and fining them for not walking in a single file line. Obese people have rights like all of us and one of those rights is to freely walk together.
In crowded places, the obese should be made to walk in single file

My honourable opponent misses the point that the main reason the obese cause so much delay is that they take up so much more space than normal people do while walking so slowly: a family or group of friends walking two or three abreast will not slow the people walking behind them nearly so much because they walk quicker and are faster to get out of other people's way when necessary. Regarding my opponent's supposed reason for becoming obese as being medical rather than lifestyle choices, I am afraid he is mistaken: the reason most people are obese is because they eat too much and do too little exercise [1]. That's why you don't see photographs of obese people in Nazi concentration camps or on TV charity appeals for starving Africans. Still, it is nice that my opponent to feel sorry enough for the obese to defend them, I just hope, for his sake, that they don't chuck his sympathy back in his face by getting in his way the next time he is walking along a crowded city centre pavement (downtown sidewalk). Thank you. [1] . http://www.nhs.uk...
In crowded places, the obese should be made to walk in single file

I will be the first to admit that obese people do cause some congestion problems. But why should these overweight individuals have to be punished for not walking in a single file line when other people are allowed to with no consequences? sure obese people take up more room but so does a family with 3 kids walking side by side, or a group of school kids or a group of everyday less overweight folks. To target those who are obese is unfair and unjust. Also if something was passed to force obese individuals to walk in a single file line where does it stop? just at the obese or will the taking of these peoples free will to walk side by side with a friend or family member just be the beginning to making it a standard form of living to make everyone walk in single file lines so as to ease congestion on our walkways? Also what happens when two obese people are walking side by side and someone tells them to walk single file because they are to fat, and it turns out these two people are obese due to a medical condition they have to live with every single day of their life, how is it fair to those two people to be told that when they never had the chance or choice to be skinnier. Obese people already have to pay for two seats on airplanes isn't that enough? Is it really our right to say "Stop obese people and get in a single file line now or else" no it is not.
In crowded places, the obese should be made to walk in single file

Firstly, I would like this to be a politically correct debate and I would be grateful it my opponent avoided using derogatory terms such as: ‘fatso’; ‘hefferlump’; ‘slobberchops’; ‘pig-in-panties’; ‘porky’; ‘lord of the pies’; ‘salad-dodging lard-arse’ and ‘big, fat, sweating pile of stinking blubber’ when referring to a gravitationally challenged person. Now, onto the debate. If you want to transport loads wider than 8ft 6in (2.59m).by road you have to apply for special permission to use the public highways. If such permission is granted, however, it is only on condition that the loads travel in single file (rather than side by side) as this system allows faster traffic to overtake. Today I am arguing that similar rules should apply to those gargantuan grease-guzzling gluttons who cause congestion in busy public areas by walking two abreast.Not impeding the progress of other people is a simple matter of common courtesy and, in fairness, some of the obese do walk in single file in order to minimise the inconvenience they cause to other people but, unfortunately, all too many of these ponderous porcine pedestrians are too ignorant and selfish to care about anybody else and that’s why I affirm that the police should issue these overweight offenders with on-the-spot fines as a punishment for causing undue congestion. For too long now these lumbering leviathans have hindered decent, hard-working people innocently going about the lawful business by placing a barely-moving blockade of blubber In their paths and it’s high time that legislation was introduced that obliges the obese are to walk in single file in crowded places. Thank you.
Gay Marriage

"homosexuals are more likely to get STD's through intercourse" That is because homosexuals are more likely to have anal sex, and has nothing to do with them simply being homosexuals. And I agree... that is not a valid reason to ban it. "It makes better fathers as they are actually HIS children" Does that mean marriages between sterile people should be illegal, because they can only have adopted children? What does this have to do with gay marriage? "Relationships like homosexual ones do not deserve this privilege as they can not contribute to society the way heterosexual couples can, and hence do not deserve the privilege of marriage." Homosexual couples can contribute to society by giving homes to children up for adoption. And, by your logic, heterosexual couples that can not have children, for whatever reason, should not be able to be married because they can not "contribute to society". Also, the planet is obviously grossly overpopulated, and I believe that very few people would consider making babies to be a service to society. Plus, homosexual marriages will not decrease the current amount of heterosexual marriages, so unless marriage is looked at as some sort of prize for being heterosexual, it makes no sense to say that homosexuals do not "deserve the privilege". Morality varies from person to person and one group's opinions should not decide who is deserving or good or bad. And isn't it inhumane to say that a person does not "deserve" to do something because of something they have no control over? What is the difference between sexual orientation and race on this subject?
Gay Marriage

I believe that there is no good reason for gay marriage to be illegal. The only reason it IS illegal in some states is religious reasons, and separation of church and state and freedom of religion are in the Constitution. Another common argument is health risks- well, turns out there aren't many. Anyone who has anal sex, homo or hetero, have the same risks to AIDS and other STDS. What, do you want to ban anal sex for everyone? Do you want to ban sneezing in public or not washing your hands? Everyone knows their own risks and the government has no right to control people's sexual or health decisions if they don't hurt anyone else. The only other reason I've heard has been "Kids need a mom and a dad, and if gay couples marry, they'll adopt". Well, gay parents tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents. And with gay marriage being legalized everywhere and more gays adopting, more children ill have homes. This leads to more commitment and involvement. Also, the children tend to be more open-minded and nurturing. Here is an article about that by Livescience: http://www.livescience.com...
Sexuality should not be a part of the Olympics

Right, which is what I said that you would say. "Well, then you might want to say, "Hey, a transsexual isn't a homosexual.." right? --True, but there are combinations of all of the above mentioned; a transsexual-gay person for example (they really exist), etc."What I'm saying is that you can't remain neutral on the subject, especially given Olympic rules for sex, gender, etc., because it's much more complicated then what everyone thinks.Not to confuse the issue but as a rhetorical question to make my point: how would a transsexual person appear in their sexual orientation??? .....They appear as "gay" .....
Sexuality should not be a part of the Olympics

Con makes great points; and I apologize for confusing sexuality with sexual orientation. Whether someone is a male or a female is altogether a different debate. I am focusing on the gay rights issue that has overshadowed the 2014 Olympics. I do not believe it is relevant to make gay rights part of the Olympics. I am not against "Pride House", but why do so many people feel it should be there? Perhaps I do not fully understand.
Sexuality should not be a part of the Olympics

Sexuality and sexual orientation was already an issue in athletic competition. The lines of sexuality and gender are blurred beyond recognizing only male and female variations of people with different sexual orientation preferences; especially because of transgender and transsexual people, which are ideas that your position and case might also compatible with, however, the "rule-book" would still have to be rewritten to make exceptions for a sports competition like the Olympics as gender and sexuality are clearly defined to keep competition fair and prevent cheating. It becomes an acute issue in athletic Olympic competition in cases where the female-male barrier is breached; allowing people with male bodies to compete with other athletes who have true female bodies and vice-versa. Also brings up the issue of Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for transsexuals, specifically, Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT). Recent examples from Mixed-martial Arts (MMA) can be used to corroborate these kinds of ideas as they recently adopted Olympic style and level drug testing but have exceptions for TRT. But then to try to graft these ideas onto a practical real world dilemma, like you have done for the Olympics, makes for a very fun and interesting case because it becomes hard to tie these ideas down even though it becomes necessary. Example for the Olympics: A transgender person who has female neurology (has a female brain) but has a male body would have to compete against men considering how she is/was born. Technically she is a girl but has male parts, therefore, would have to compete against men. But because she has a female brain, her male body didn't develop to be masculine and would qualify for (HRT) which would then break the banned substance policies. And if she is truly a female with a male body, should she be allowed to compete against other females (her testicles don't produce much testosterone but certainly more than other true female athletes with female bodies) etc. ? Which still violates the current rules for the Olympics (which if you're for amending then that isn't exactly neutral). Well, then you might want to say, "Hey, a transsexual isn't a homosexual.." right? --True, but there are combinations of all of the above mentioned; a transsexual-gay person for example (they really exist), etc. So I don't think Pro can remain purely "neutral" on the topic, because either way, it becomes an issue -- it was already one in competitive athletics before the Russian debacle. So my personal feeling on this one is that everyone is wrong because we are still collecting data and details.
Sexuality should not be a part of the Olympics

The Olympics is a perfect platform for politics and religion, but should it be? The Russian anti-gay law is wrong by any standard, but the Olympics should not be a platform for it or against it. The Olympics is not about any particular person's sexuality, and it seems to have cast a shadow over the whole event. I think that sexuality should not be an issue in the Olympics. Pro will be for the Olympics being neutral on sexuality and Con will be for sexuality being an issue. Whether you are gay or straight should not be brought into this event. It is no one's business but your own and should not be put on display.
tomatoes are no the same as tomatoes

Tomatoes are inherently the same as tomatoes, because they have the same definition, which according to dictionary.com is: "any of several plants belonging to the genus Lycopersicon, of the nightshade family, native to mexico and Central and South America, esp. the widely cultivated species L. lycopersicum, bearing a mildly acid, pulpy, usually red fruit eaten raw or cooked as a vegetable." To look at it another way, since tomatoes are included in the group of tomatoes, and vice versa, they must be one and the same. Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com...
Stan Thompson was, in all likelihood, a psychopath

There should be more joke debates like these. Anyway, I'll get to the point. First, I think we can all agree that whoever must be the father of Meg MUST be a psychopath. Hey, seeing her, i wouldn't blame him xD But sadly, I will have to end this debate in the first round. Meg was never the child of Stan Thompson. And this is because Stan Thompson never existed: - In one of the Star Wars specials, Meg asks Peter to tell a story about her being born. Peter replies: "We came back from the hospital accidentally with the afterbirth and had to go back to get you". - In another episode, Peter talks about disappointments, resulting in a cutaway showing the doctors pulling Meg out of Lois exclaiming "it's a girl" with Peter standing by her. - And finally, your own evidence spoke against you. Clicking the URL you presented brings you to a page with a sentence that says Brian tells Meg that she is just like her father and proceeds to compare her to Peter. And besides, the family is screwing around with Meg all the time. When Peter talks about Stan, Meg is listening to her music, so this was probably a failed attempt to mess with her. But thank you for the debate, but I hope I made a mistake or you found evidence saying otherwise so we can continue :)
Stan Thompson was, in all likelihood, a psychopath

In the Family Guy episode "Screwed the pooch", Brian reveals that Meg Griffin's real father is actually a man named Stan Thompson[1]. Nothing else is ever revealed about this man, however, I will argue that there is strong reason to believe that he was a psychopath.Whether or not Stan Thompson is really Meg's father is not the point of debate here, and it will be assumed to be true.Note: this is a joke debate.===Sources===[1] http://familyguy.wikia.com...