BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
keystone pipeline (I'm against it)

Although the environment isn't the only argument against the keystone pipeline, its a very important one. We live in the environment, and the animals live in the environment. Also, people's health and well-being are being affected by this pipeline. Asthma, hypothyroidism and other rare diseases are commonly found to be an effect of water-contamination. But not just drinking water, even agricultural water. And, if The co2 emissions from this pipeline increase our global temperature, then the ice caps will melt and cause ocean flooding to islands and low-elevated areas. And the people aren't the only ones affected by this. Animals that live on the ice and in the cold oceans around the ice will possibly go extinct. That and the environmental harm caused by this pipeline to me just doesn't seem right. And, contrary to ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, and BP profits in 2005 and 2010, 11,200 employees in the U.S Workforce lost their jobs. Even their global workforce dove down to 4,400 employees, when their executives paid themselves 220 million dollars the exact same year. Instead of the same fossil fuel interests encouraging the keystone pipeline creating jobs, its cutting jobs. Additionally, Mother Nature is getting even crazier these days. Due to Global Warming, Natural Disaster frequencies have increased drastically and the severity of the disasters are increasing with it. That's all caused by co2 and other toxic gases being released into the air, which is what the pipeline does everyday. So, that means more houses and buildings are going to be constantly rebuilt, putting financial hardship on families and friends. Besides, We can use more reliable, renewable, and environmentally-friendly energy sources, like electric cars, solar-powered electricity, and more. To learn more about why I think the keystone pipeline is bad AND If you don't believe me, you can check my sources this time: http://www.labor4sustainability.org... This time I made sure to reword what I read to make sure it wasn't plagiarism.
keystone pipeline (I'm against it)

Well, that was disappointing. I spent roughly two hours on my section of the debate going through and learning about a topic I have never looked at before, and unfortunately my opponent has decided to plagarise talking points from the environmentalist website Friends of the Earth, quite literally lifting an entire page word for word. Here is the link to the page: http://www.foe.org... I thought it looked familiar, given I had been on the site earlier when looking for sources. To note, environmental concerns are an important factor in the debate surrounding Keystone XL, but it is not the only one. If my opponent wishes to discuss the environmental impact, I will gladly do so - however, my debate is with him, not the FOE. I will give him round three to reintroduce his arguments, his OWN arguments, and maybe we can continue this debate. I'd also like to note that FOE's page doesn't really deal with safety issues, but rather slandering "tar sands" oil. My points all still stand.
Veganism is a scam and waste.

Most of the risks from eating meat products come from the fact that we as Americans eat too much meat. In moderation, meat is a great source of many nutrients. Veganism is a scam since it is cleverly worked out by propaganda organizations, like PETA. They use scare tactics. They tried everything from comparing meat eaters to the holocaust, to scaring growing children away from drinking milk. If you have heard of the "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine", don't listen to them. They are affiliated with PETA. Vegans use the "point A to point Z" logic when describing the health of eating meat. They first tell you the risks of eating too much meat, and then they tell you that you shouldn't eat meat at all. A similar argument: "I had a friend who drive off a cliff at 85 miles per hour. Therefore, you should ride a bike." Some lies that vegan organizations have told: - Humans are vegan by evolution. This story circulated around the internet is based on the assumption that there are only two types of animal; carnivore and herbivore. We are omnivores. Our anatomy is halfway between a carnivore and an herbivore. Our appendix, which is needed to be an herbivore, is completely useless. Herbivores use it as a second stomach to break down cellulose. - Humans are the only primate that eats meat or hunts. Again, not true. Chimpanzees are known to hunt as well. - But humans have to COOK the food! Have you ever wondered why animals in captivity outlive those in the wild? It's the cooked food. We can eat raw meat if we want, but it is worse for our health. "We're the only species" is a weak argument. After all, we are the only species that debates online. - Vegan is healthier. Perhaps for a "detox" or temporary diet, or if your heart is naturally bad. But veganism is a poor decision for most people, a bad decision for athletes and armymen, and a terrible decision for rapidly growing teens. I already cited some articles on the benefits of being an omnivore. You then end up donating money to PETA and quack-doctors, and spending more money on artificial foods like tofu. How is that not a scam? Veganism is a waste because all it does is waste meat. 1. The consumer didn't kill the animal. 2. The animal wasn't killed by the request of the consumer. It was already dead when it was shipped to the store. 3. Vegans do not make a big dent in the "supply and demand" model. Unless Obama made it mandatory, veganism will not make any change on the number of animals killed. 4. If the already dead cows are not eaten, they are wasted. 5. Therefore, the cows died in vain, and vegans are immoral. Many of the articles for "veganism saves animals" come from biased vegan websites, and not from reputable news.
Veganism is a scam and waste.

Reasons why veganism is a scam and waste: 1. Veganism does NOT reduce the numbers of animals killed. Any thinking person could realize that (1) you didn't kill the animal and (2) the animal was killed long before you order your burger/ buy your steak. It does nothing in terms of reducing the numbers of animals killed. If anything, it wastes perfectly good meat. 2. Let's suppose veganism DID save animals. Well, in that case, it is impossible to live an animal-free lifestyle. Harvesting vegetables and grains inevitably kills insects and worms. Many vegans reject honey, proving they consider bees to be an animal. Not to mention, it is virtually impossible to be a PETA vegan, who doesn't even use anything with animals. images.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/gmPbL.jpg That infographic sums it up. There is no such thing as a vegan, and there is definitely no such thing as a PETA vegan. 3. Overstated health benefits. Though you can live as a vegan, you may not have the same quality of health. There are some nutrients only found in meat, or which meat is the best source. authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/ www.mnwelldir.org/docs/nutrition/meat.htm Zinc, creatine, B-12, etc. Sure, there are supplements, but supplements are unnatural, expensive, and probably come from an animal anyway. Vegan "meats", "milk", and "eggs" are just a feel-good euphemism for PROCESSED FOODS. You are eating chemically treated soy, loaded with thousands of unpronounceable chemicals. Risks of soy: www.wnd.com/2006/12/39253/ www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/soy-health_b_1822466.html Carrageenan (thickening agent in almond milk.) www.thekitchn.com/why-i-stopped-drinking-almond-milk-started-drinking-regular-milk-again-197085 As you can see, eating flesh is the lesser of the two evils. Would you rather hear that some cow lost its life, or see you or a friend (or your child!) in a hospital with anemia? Don't think of it as "gross" and "cruel". If you saw what food looks like in your stomach, your skin under a microscope, or where your poop goes after you flush it, you will realize how "gross" and "cruel" nature is. C'est la vie! It is not war or Holocaust. The animals weren't killed in a sadisic ritual. Real meat should only have one ingredient, meat. Same with milk and eggs. I have a conspiracy theory that the vegan food industry is really just a cover of the processed food industry. They want your money. They don't care about your health. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to stay "closer to the farm" when eating food.
Veganism is a scam and waste.

I accept. Now, let’s look at the resolution. “Veganism is a scam and waste. ” Since I am con, I have two main duties. First, I must show that veganism isn’t a scam. Secondly, I must show that it isn’t completely a waste and it does have positives. Since my opponent also posted some arguments against veganism, I will also put rebuttals against his claims. I will now define some things. Veganism: When someone eats no animal or dairy products at all. Scam: A dishonest scheme; a fraud. Waste: Use or expend to no purpose. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): An American animal rights organization. I will offer contentions and rebuttals starting next round.
Veganism is a scam and waste.

1. There are some nutrients that are found in meat, but not in vegetables. Examples are heme-iron, vitamin B12, DHA, and creatine. These are essential for body and brain function. I used to know a vegetarian boy who has mental problems. His parents to this day stil don't know what is causing it. I think it's the lack of meat. Being a meat eater is the lesser of the two evils. Would you rather know that some pig is being killed for your health, or know that you (or your kids) will be in the doctor's office with preventable disorders? 2. Vegan food is processed food. People have complained about how blueberry muffins contain fake blueberries, and most Wasabi is just horseradish dyed green. Yet no one cares if a company passes off astronaut paste as "meat", passes off almond-flavored water as "milk", or passes off artificial goop as "eggs". 3. There is no such thing as a vegan. Drywall, the microphone in your cell phone, medications, and even tennis racket stringss contain animal products. If you want to live to Peta's standards, you must give up leather products (even if it is a byproduct), protest animal experimentation (even if it is a cure for cancer), protest all forms of animal entertainment (even movies with dogs in them), and protest pets (even seeing-eye dogs.)
Kids/Teens don't need their own cell phones.

I.RebuttalsNone needed. Pro has not refuted my statement.The resolution states that children do not need their own cell phone.In order to need something, it must be required for a goal.Children need to own their own cell phone to own their own cell phone.Since children require a cell phone to achieve that goal, they need the cell phone.Pro goes on to make a claim that people only have cell phones to make themselves happy. She did not supprt this claim.I have falsified the resolution.
Kids/Teens don't need their own cell phones.

I.Cross-ExaminationNone needed. Pro didn't supply a reason why cell phones are unessecary to children, she only showed why they are dangerous/distracting. Neither of which are relevant to the resolution.II.ConstructLooking into the definition, we see "Need" means required to acheive a goal. Therefore, if children require cell phones to attain any possible goal, then the resolution is rendered false.-Children need to own a cell phone to own a cell phone.- Resolution falsified.Back to Pro.
Kids/Teens don't need their own cell phones.

I believe that Teens/Kids do not need their own cell phones because: 1. Cell phones are a distraction, especially in school. 2. In an emergency you could ask to use someone else's cell phone, use a house phone, or use a payphone. 3. Texting and driving/ walking is dangerous, and cell phones will encourage that. 4. You can make calls and text using a computer 5. Cell phones are expensive, especially when you have to pay for texts, calls,internet hot spots (in some cases), and basic maintenance.
Richard Nixon was a better president than John F. Kennedy

First, I do not believe that one's success as president can be measured by his accomplishments in office alone. I will not deny that Nixon had the accomplishments in office he did (though I do intend to offer a rebuttal of them of the next round). However, Nixon also destroyed the trust of the American people in government; this would not be repaired until the 1980's. The first part of my argument I will offer is that Kennedy, with respect to the time in office, did no less than Nixon. Kennedy was the first president recognized as supporting the socially liberal views of the American people; he passed executive orders that banned discrimination based on race. Socially, he also abolished the federal death penalty. In addition, scientifically, he brought the space race to the forefront of America, and initiated Project Apollo. Many technological advances in society resulted. With regards to foreign policy, he defused the Cuban Missile Crisis. He also signed the predecessor to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed by Nixon, the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He established the Peace Corps, and the Alliance for Progress. He also created diplomatic ties with Israel. It also goes without saying that he gave some of the most effective and remembered speeches in American history. With all of this in mind, it is false to say that Kennedy's time in office was by any means "ineffective". The second part of my argument is that, given that my aforementioned point is true, and both men had their major accomplishments, Nixon's legacy of Watergate damaged society enough to make his legacy ultimately worse than Kennedy's. Because the two were relatively equal in terms of accomplishments, the stain of Watergate caused Nixon to ultimately be a worse president than Kennedy. Due to the fact that we have agreed to not post rebuttals in this round, I shall wait to refute my opponents' points until the next round. I would also like to take a moment to point out that my opponent did in fact cite sources for the round, and you may find them in the comments. I would also like to thank him for his good-will time check. Sources: http://us-presidents.findthedata.org... http://www.whitehouse.gov... http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Capitalism Encourages Freedom

I would also propose that we should clarify the definition of "freedom" for purposes of this debate. Since that you and I both lean to the left, I am happy to accept a definition of freedom that includes both negative political right (speech, assembly, etc. without threat of force or coercion) and the positive liberty to conditions which allow individuals to be self-sufficient or to achieve self-realization. I also accept that restraints on and threats to both positive and negative freedom may arise from the government or from private actors. Under the wording of the resolution, however, I need not demonstrate that capitalism encourages all forms of freedom, or the different forms of freedom equally. I would suggest that I have the burden instead to show that capitalism encourages at least some of the forms of freedom contained within the broad social concept of "freedom" discussed above. Again, thank you for this debate -- I'm looking forward to the discussion!
Capitalism Encourages Freedom

This argument is over the relation of Capitalism and freedom, with myself believing that capitalism hinders freedom. This first round is to be for accepting the debate, and to clarify certain points: 1. This debate is not necessarily an argument for or against capitalism, merely its role in human freedom (for instance, you could believe that capitalism can result in war and dictatorship, but support it due to your belief in its inevitability or opposition to other economic models, hence being on my position despite supporting capitalism). 2. Capitalism does not necessarily imply a free-market, laissez faire model, simply an economic system based on at least some private ownership of the means of production. One could enter this debate on the "capitalism encourages freedom" side as a European-style social democrat favoring a strong public sector just as much as one could as a right-libertarian or tea-partyist. May the best debater win!
Should Hollywood fall off the eath

"Just because some are bad" Honestly, what does the Los Angeles region have running for them besides the media pit Hollywood, the city's not worth anything, our youth send themselves over there and end up getting tied up in all of these other issues, when they have the potential to become great entrepreneurs or just even being a part of the much-needed working class. Instead of our youth being influenced by Hollywood and desire to indulge themselves in modern media/entertainment and chose to not partake in working labor lets have them be a part of the appropriate structured production society
Abortion should be banned

So the young girl should be punished for what she did? She made a mistake and then she would have to live with it for the rest of her life? Even if she gave the baby up for adoption she would have to carry the baby in her stomach for 9 months, and ruin her body. And what would her friends think of her it will also ruin her reputation. She would be the young girl who is pregnant by mistake, and the girl who gave her baby up for adoption. What If the other kids start to tease her?
Abortion should be banned

I don"t really think that you are reading what I am writing. I am not saying that rape is not a problem. I am saying that the problem is that they were raped, not that they are pregnant. Of course rapes a problem. And if the young girl is responsible enough to party and have unsafe sex, then she is responsible enough to take the consequences, I do not think that abortion is the way out of it, she can give the baby up for adoption instead of killing the child.
Abortion should be banned

How can you say that rape I not a problem? I understand what you mean with the abusing part, she can just leave him and the problem is over. But rape is not the person"s fault! It"s the rapist fault! So how can you even say that"s its not a problem! But what if it"s a young girl who gets pregnant. With her boyfriend or just a guy she met at a party. She will ruin her live by having the baby? A child can"t take care of a child. So It will also ruin the child"s life, is that what you want? A bad mother?
Abortion should be banned

: When you choose to get an abortion, you only think about yourself? You are so selfish that you choose to kill an innocent small fetus, in what way is that okay? It is murder! Even if the human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the government. It is probably your own fault that you are pregnant, and then to get an abortion is just an easy way out. There are other ways, you can grow up and keep the child, or you can give the child up for adoption, give it a chance to live, a chance to be a real human being. By killing the fetus you deny it all the chances to live and to have a beautiful life, is that really what you want? You have a choice, the fetus don"t. Some doctors even mean that the fetus feels pain under an abortion, but nothing is proven 100 % yet. An abortion can also cause Health problems and psychological damage for the mother. By getting an abortion you can ruin the chances of ever getting a baby or you can get really depress because you have to live with the fact that you killed an innocent fetus. So I really think that Abortion should be banned.
This Argument for the Existence of God Doesn't Work

However, I'd like to sum up a few things:Occam's Razor: I don't know enough about Occam's razor to argue this point. I did not respond to it because I didn't have space, and didn't see it as important as other points of contention. Infinity: I believe that, while my opponent's argument is vague, I have gotten a decent grasp on it, and have mounted an adequete rebuttal. Causality: Once again, I think my opponent's argumen here is vague, difficult to understand, and as such, cannot be considered a strong argument. I'd like to thank Matt for the opportunity to debate this topic. I've had a good time. However, I'd like to point out that his argument is extremely vague and very unclear. I've asked several of my friends who are more well-versed in philosophy than me to read it, and just tell me if they understood what the argument was, and both of them said they had no idea what the argument said. So, in a friendly spirit, I'd reccommend that my opponent try and make the argument more clear next time. He seems to be knowledgeable on the subject, yet as the argument is currently stated it suffers from lack of clarity, which in turn makes the argument weak. I also notice a note of frustration in my opponent's voice. Since my opponent seems frustrated with me, has used the comments to exceed the character limits, and I haven't had the time to post my arguments for this round, I ask that the voters ignore round 5. I believe this is reasonable, since both my opponent and I have shown some not-so-good conduct. Nonetheless, I believe that in the course of the first four rounds I have shown that the argument is vague and ambiguous, has several holes in it, and does not prove the existence of God. Thank you!
There is no such thing as 'middle class', so people should shut up about it

"I propose a class analysis that sees the world as mainly divided into the working class and the capitalist class..." The problem with merging the lower and middle class if that's what you are saying is that the working class will probably cover almost every job that's paid by the hour and the capitalist class will probably be the people in top positions in companies and government officials. Can you please define what you think the working and capitalist classes should be? Many people use a five-class system with the lower class, working class, lower middle class, upper middle class, and the upper class. I don't have anything against someone just using a two-class system, but I still don't see how the middle class shouldn't exist.
There is no such thing as 'middle class', so people should shut up about it

The middle class is real and it is the meaningful term. There are people in poverty with very limited income (the lower class/underclass). There are people who normally live paycheck to paycheck, but have enough income to easily support themselves. That's the middle class, the average full-time worker is middle class. The upper class is the wealthy class. If you were to take out the middle class, there would only be the wealthy and the poor. So yes, there has to be a middle class so that there would be a term to represent the average worker. There is a big difference between an income of $200k, $30k, and $10k, so I think that the term "middle class" is very meaningful, and there is a thing as the "middle class". A two class system wouldn't work very good since it will have to cover just two extremes and it would be hard for the average worker to identify themselves as the most wealthy or poorest class since they likely wouldn't feel very rich or very poor.
There is no such thing as 'middle class', so people should shut up about it

I will argue that the term 'middle class' is meaningless, and that there is a simple political agenda behind it. And in its place, I propose a class analysis that sees the world as mainly divided into the working class and the capitalist class, and that the interests of these two classes are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable. And as a result of that being the case, class conflict is central in the world we live in.