BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Every person in 1st world countries should abstain from eating meat.

Meat definition "1. the flesh of animals as used for food. " [0] I will use vegetarian and abstaining from eating meat interchangeably from now on. First, lets clear the air and claim that vegetarian diets are safe. Warrant: [1] Impact: vegetarian diets are safe for humans of all ages including children, infants, and unborn fetuses. Claim 1: Meatless diets are better for the environment. Warrant: Common knowledge. Impact: This is additional incentive to become vegetarian. Claim 2: Avoiding meat saves animals from suffering. Warrant: Common knowledge. Impact: This is good for many reasons, in general causing pain to others is considered to be immoral. Claim 3: Buying meat produced in factory farms causes animal cruelty. Warrant: No need to cause suffering to animals, thus cannot claim survival. Impact: Animal cruelty is bad for a lot of reasons and avoiding this gives additional incentive to eat meatless. Claim 4: Vegetarian diets are better for your health. Warrant: Common knowledge. Impact: Saving on your health is not only incentive, but helps alleviate health care costs. 0. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
The finitude of the past of the universe does not necessitate that the universe had a creator

Straw-ManMy opponent claims that my argument is that because there is no "before" The Big Bang, that asking about causal states of affairs "before" The Big Bang is meaningless. The problem was that this was not really my argument. My argument is that there is nothing impossible about the first state of the universe being being that which there is no "metaphysically prior" to. It is possible that there is no ontological room for a cause. Confusion Regarding The ChartsCon claims that (ii) describes B-Theory, and (i) describes A-Theory. This is false, they both were meant to describe A-Theory, as the chart was under the A-Theory headline. The difference between the two is that only in one does the universe come into being, assuming A-Theory, even if the universe has a finite past. Does B-Theory Eliminate Cause And Effect Relationships?"In that B-theory being a more deterministic[4] view of time, eliminates cause and effect relationships" The above is false. Under B-Theory there would still be causal relations, but they would be tenseless. Modal Intuition And Epiphanies? This section from my opponent seemed to have very little relevance to the debate, as they don't rebut any of my arguments or support Con's case.Example 1 The 2 dimensional measurement of a 3 dimensional object with a 2 dimensional instrumentAll my opponent did was give an example of how a measuring device is not equipped to measure something unless something about it changes. At this point, Con has not tied this into an argument against the resolution. So, there is no point in rebutting it until this occurs. Rebuttal 2 Failure of current experience to describe the Time=0 event.Even if there does not have to be a t=0 like my opponent states, there is a still a first state of the universe which is the first interval of time. My argument is that may very well be where the "buck stops" metaphysically. Therefore, asking for a metaphysical explanation would be futile if there is no room for one! This has been my argument from the beginning, and Con straw-manned it without responding sufficiently. Basically, the universe couldn't have been created if there is not metaphysical room for a creator. Con would have to show that the first state of the universe is not a state that is there is no "metaphysically prior to". As he has not done that, he has not met his burden of proof. ConclusionMy opponent's whole argument begs the question and assumes that the first state of the universe is something that needs explaining or describing. My argument is that there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that is the case. It is prima facie possible that the explanations stop at the very first interval of time, or state of the universe. SourcesMost of my opponent's sources in his last rounds were definitions, I could do the same to gain source points but I feel the voters are smart enough not to give out source points for definitions when that is clearly just to "fill space". I should only be docked source points if my argument required them and I lacked them. I do not think that is the case.
splinter cell or metal gear solid

Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell is a series of award-winning action-adventure stealth video games, the first of which was released in 2002, and their tie-in novels. The protagonist, Sam Fisher, is a highly-trained agent of a fictional black-ops sub-division within the NSA, dubbed "Third Echelon". The player controls Fisher, who usually has the iconic trifocal goggles at his disposal, to overcome his adversaries in levels based on Unreal engines that were extended to emphasise light and darkness as gameplay elements. All the console and PC games in the series were critically acclaimed, and the series is commercially successful. The series, along with Assassin's Creed, is considered to be one of Ubisoft's flagship franchises.
splinter cell or metal gear solid

You like realism right? then explain why you you have infenet amount of amunation in your gun? in metal gear solid you dont just have a limmited amount of amunation but even your sillencer can break from over use. Metal gear was also alot about thye story, getting you involved in it. you might not have been able to exicute any fancy ecrobatic movement, but you felt like you were a spy, and you had exicute your mission. Plus each map in the game is open for you to explore. You must exicute your command any way you want. In fact you can ineract with people in the HQ really realisticly. Everyone in the game seemed like a person, not just a drone.
why change just to fit in

If blending in is taken to be less desirable than thrusting one's personality on those who are incapable of appreciating it, then the individual basing their actions on this outlook will fail to ever succeed in life.Life in the human world, at the very least, only works within an ecosystem whereby several life forms (human in nature) interact to produce a functioning society where each finds their temporary place for harmony to be achieved. If one finds that their instinctively preferred role has already been taken by a more accepted and well-established rival then to suggest that it would be wiser to cause a ruckus and throw themselves at an otherwise harmonious society is absurd.The notion that it is 'their problem not yours' stems from the lack of understanding that if one is rejected and left alone, it becomes a huge problem for them to survive in that group which consists of "individuals" themselves.In conclusion, blending in is fundamentally more important than standing out but only striving for one without the other is psychologically damaging.
The user known as Danielle used dishonest tactics in her same-sex parenting debate.

Obviously this is a very immature debate that I feel almost embarrassed to participate in, but my opponent absolutely refuses to debate me again (not surprised) on a new resolution of his choice. Instead he wants to re-hash this old debate. Fine. For those of you who don't know, we debated the resolution "Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples. " I won that debate, and my opponent accuses me of "lying" by using semantics to exploit the word can in the resolution. Of course that isn't remotely true as I will demonstrate. Considering the fact that I gave my opponent the opportunity to change the resolution BEFORE the debate, as well as clarified that I would not be relying on the word can (and pointed out throughout the debate that his obsession over the word can was irrelevant), it's clear that Pro cannot rely on this single desperate objection to make his case. As such, he apparently wants to argue that I won not only because of the faulty resolution but by using "dishonest" tacctics (fallacies, repetition, etc. ). I think most people on DDO understand that I won the debate on gay parenting because 1) I'm a better debater than Pro and made good arguments; 2) My position was simply the correct one - gay parents can raise children just as as well as heterosexual parents. Again, I explained throughout the debate that by "can" I don't mean that they are simply able to, but that they generally do. The main point of my case was that there is no attribute inherent to heterosexuality that makes straight people better parents. Pro couldn't provide evidence to the contrary, and that's why he lost. I didn't need to rely on any type of fallacious reasoning or dishonesty to win such a simple debate. For those of you who have the stomach to withstand this sore loserness, stay tuned.
The user known as Danielle used dishonest tactics in her same-sex parenting debate.

Many people on this site know about me and Danielle's same-sex parenting debate, in which she won by a large margin and I accused her of using dishonest arguments (lawyering, strawmen, etc) in order to gain victory.In case you haven't, here's the link: [http://debate.org...]I accuse her of avoiding the resolution, misinterpreting my arguments, lying about my burden of proof, repeating arguments that had no bearing on the debate, and assigning absurd burdens of proof on things that should require none. Think of this as an unofficial trial of sorts, albeit one where only honor is at stake.She has just agreed debate me so that this can be answered once and for all. Obviously there will be no lawyering, semantics, strawmen, or any other sort of avoidance tactics, and I will quickly and explicitly call out any such behavior.Please note that we are not arguing whether I should have won the debate, or if my own arguments refuted hers. We are simply settling the question of whether she used dishonest tactics to a large degree in the debate. R1, as agreed upon, will be for resolution and rule clarification. In addition, there will be no character limit in this debate- each of us is free to extend our arguments as long as we want (within reason).I look forward to hearing this defense.
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

I will now back off from the assertion that marijuana should be legalized entirely and generally. To attempt to argue the general statement of "Marijuana should be legalized" would result in my definite defeat. This is my first argument on here and i don't exactly know all the rules, so shifting my perspective in the way that I am about to do may result in my defeat. I should have argued "Marijuana should be legal in a private setting. So if you wish to continue the debate with this i would be glad. As for the previous topic you have the win. Marijuana should be legalized, and along with its legalization strict laws should be made to stop public usage. If one is found under the influence while driving they should receive an extremely harsh punishment. I believe the punishment for drunk driving should also be severely increased, but that is a different argument. One should only be aloud to use marijuana on there private property. This eliminates the possibility of non-consensual second hand smoke. This means that if you are a man who smokes marijuana at your home, and you have a wife who is pregnant, than she is consenting to receiving the second hand smoke, if she does not consent and she also owns the property then you are in violation of her right to decide what goes on in her home. If she does not consent and does not own the property then she has the choice to leave your property. By limiting the use of marijuana to only the private setting of the user, this effectively does not infringe on any one else's rights.
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

I accept your challenge and will proceed to counter your already placed argument. Here we go: 1. You claim and I accept the idea that infringing on someone else's inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is illegal and wrong. 2. If you accept this then I only need to prove that smoking marijuana infringes on others inalienable rights. 3. According to the 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 10.3 million people aged 12 or older (or 3.9 percent of adolescents and adults) reported driving under the influence of illicit drugs during the year prior to being surveyed. This was higher than the rate in 2011 (3.7percent) and lower than the rate in 2002 (4.7 percent). By comparison, in 2012, an estimated 29.1 million persons (11.2 percent) reported driving under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year. (This percentage has dropped since 2002, when it was 14.2 percent.) After alcohol, THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the active ingredient in marijuana, is the substance most commonly found in the blood of impaired drivers, fatally injured drivers, and motor vehicle crash victims. Studies in several localities have found that approximately 4 to 14 percent of drivers who sustained injury or died in traffic accidents tested positive for THC. (http://www.drugabuse.gov...) 4. The previous statement would help in my assertion that marijuana impedes on inalienable rights because when people use and drive, they are a hazard to everyone around them and themselves. 5. The use of marijuana also can be gained through second-hand smoke and from pregnant women. Women who smoke and are pregnant have more deformed and mentally challenged children because of its affects on the chemistry of the brain. Over to you, Pro
Legalization of Recreational Marijuana

Marijuana should be legalized for recreational consumption. It should be up to the individual to decide whether or not they wish to consume marijuana, regardless of what ever health effects it has on the body. If one enjoys passing their time by smoking marijuana that should not be an activity that is considered illegal. The three inalienable rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the catch to these rights is you only have them if you are not infringing on another individuals rights. therefore if murder is how you pursue happiness that would not be allowed due to the fact that it infringes on your victims rights. As long as ones consumption of marijuana does not infringe on the rights of another individual, one should be allowed to consume it as they see fit.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine astoids.

Contention 2&3: China My opponent states that the US has stated that China only controls about 90% of the Global Production of REMs. So let's observe the Global REM production from 1994-2013. If we observe the above graph we can see tha China pratically owns the monopoly on the Global trade market as I showed in an earlier Round. It was caused by the Chinese beginning to sell REMs at a cheeper price than that of what the US was selling them for. My opponent then goes to bring up reserves and though the US does indeed have the numbers that my opponent has mentioned China is traveling the world buying up large reserves in other nations. In 2009, the Chinese Non-Ferrous Metal Mining Company bought up large portions of REM rich land in Australia and other key mining facilities in Africa. This is for them to gain conrol and a full monopoly on the global market. (. http://geology.com...) My opponent has dropped my arguments that I have made last round stating that it's cheeper to mine asteroids then it is to mine on Earth. This is key, because with the asteroid mining to be cheaper then mining on Earth it is key that we get a jump start before other nations that way the United States can easily take hold of the new market. I'll expand on why this is key later on. Though REM prices have fallen due to the Chinese market manipulation prices per ounce are still pretty high for the REMs. (. http://www.metal.com...) Contention 1&4: Profits. Sorry, I thought that I had sited my sources for the cost of mining the asteroid. NASA has stated that it will cost $2.6 billion to mine an asteroid. (. http://www.space.com...) Not only that, but as I brought up in my last round we do indeed have the technology. Space. com has reported that asteroids contain $195 Billion worth in minerals. Of whith is $65 billion in water. THat means that going out and recovering the water has already provided an expotentionally high return on the mission. (. http://www.isciencetimes.com...) Now as I brougth up last round and it went uncontested is that we A) already have the technology for asteroid minig and it's already cheap and fessable and B) Asteroid Mining is cheeper than mining on Earth. These are two key arguments that went uncontested as they both show an emmence amount that asteroid mining is increditably cheep and it's cheeper than mining here on Earth showing that it doesn't matter that we have resources here if the resources in space are cheeper to get than the resources on Earth then wouldn't we want to do things the cheeper way and pull in more profit? He also drops the alternatives argument showing that asteroid mining is the only easy and feasable method for mining in space. WIth that the resolution is affirmed.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine astoids.

Alright, take two! I accept and am honored to be able to pop the 300th cherry for Lannan. Since the definition of "small" and "rocky" can be subjective, I believe a clarification for Asteroids is in order. It is also distinguished from Planets, Moons, Dwarf Planets, and Comets. Here is the IAU distinguishing [1][2] since it established definitions in the mid 2000's. [1] http://www.differencebetween.info... [2] http://www.iau.org...
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should mine astoids.

I would like to thank Ore_Ele for accepting this debate and having this rematch of my 3rd debate on this site 3 years ago on the same topic. Now I'll lay down a few rules and such before we begin our debate. This is our redo debate after a few errors that occured in our last debate.RulesFirst Round is acceptance and definitions.Second Round is for Contentions, no rebuttles.Third Round is for Rebuttles.Forth Round is for Rebuttles and Conclusions. (No new arguments)No semantics No Trolling. Should- Usedtoexpressobligationorduty (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Mine- a pit or tunnel from which minerals (such as coal, gold, diamonds, etc.) are taken (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Asteroids- any of the small rocky celestial bodies found especially between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
New is always better

I disagree with this concept for several important reasons.Change can and does result in negative situations. For example, it would certainly be 'change' if someone's house was destroyed and they had to live on the street as a hobo, but would that be a better situation than before? Of course not. Another example would be if you were attacked on the street by a knife-wielding maniac who cuts off your left arm and right leg. That would certainly be change, but is it for the better? Of course not. Because the resolution says change is always better, the resolution is negated.
child labour is bad and unethical

I suppose it also depends on the type of occupation. Child stable-hands in a horse sanctuary – good. Child camel-racing jockeys in Dubai – not so good. Paperboy – good. Rentboy – not so good. Child actors in children's films like Harry Potter – good. Child actors in adult films like Little Lolita and her Latino Lovers starring Tinkerbelle la Sucez, Paedo Pedro and Dirty Sanchez – not so good.
child labour is bad and unethical

I note with interest that my opponent comes from India, which has the worst child labour record in the world. (1) However, India is also the world's largest democracy, which means that the Indian electorate has voted into power a government that is either unwilling or unable to tackle the problem of child exploitation in the workplace. That said, many Indian families would not be able to afford to educate their children unless their offspring went out to work, at least part-time. Furthermore, it is demand from abroad that fuels child labour in India. I am English myself and am, therefore, rather partial to a nice cup of tea (milk and two sugars please!) Since it is too cold to grow tea in Britain, we have traditionally imported it from India. Now, as a British consumer, I have a choice. I could buy tea from a mainstream tea producer in the hope that they don't exploit children to the extent that they are denied even a basic education and pay ï¿½1 a packet or I could pay ï¿½1.50 a packet for Fairtrade tea (2) and be absolutely sure that the producers are paid a fair price and definitely do not exploit children. I might choose the latter, but most people don't care that much and would spend the extra 50p on a packet of biscuits to dunk in their cuppas! Therefore, if India did crack down on child labour, the price of tea from India would rise and tea importers would source their tea from less scrupulous countries instead. This would be very damaging for India's economy and mean that the government would have less money to spend on child welfare programmes. (1)http://www.oxfam.org.uk... (2)http://www.fairtrade.org.uk...
child labour is bad and unethical

Let's be clear. A child is a person less than 18 years old and, if they work, it may not be full-time and they may also be in receipt of an education. They may, additionally, receive vocational training in the workplace. I can only speak from personal experience. I was fortunate enough to receive an excellent education, which was provided for me by the state and which was funded by the taxpayer. However, my parents were as poor as church mice and could barely afford the basic necessities in life (we were so poor the neighbours used to bring us kids empty bags of sugar to sniff as a special treat - we were so poor that the rats in our kitchen had to bring their own lunch – or at least they would have done but we were too poor to have a kitchen - no really! ) Therefore, in order to help support the family, from the age of eight, I was sent out to work in the evenings, at the weekends and during the school holidays, At that age, I earned ï¿½20 a week rowing boats for tourists and my wages paid for my school uniform, shoes and books and also contributed towards the household bills. Since then, I have never been out of work. I recognise that I was fortunate to grow up in Britain where even the poorest pupils are able to attend the best schools (provided they have the academic ability to do so) but I believe my extended work experience, my appreciation of the real value of money and my enhanced work ethic has been of great benefit to me both personally and professionally. Of course I don't want to see very young children sent down the mines to shovel coal and be completely denied an education, but child labour, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing.
In a hierarchy of value, evidence is more valuable to society then belief.

Con; the reason why I did not expand more or provide a counter argument to your religion argument is because it drifts off from the original topic. You say that to some faith is evidence? My point exactly, people need evidence to back-up their claims. Christianity does not stand without evidence , faith alone does not suffice for it. Your biblical quotes do not do much for the debate, they are simply skewed to show a strength In belief but fails to show how faith is more important than evidence. My 3rd contention goes completely untouched, there is no text anywhere in your previous argument which must mean you concede to the pros position on the topic; evidence is the most important value in this debate.