BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once.

Sorry, the link I meant to post for the second link was this: http://sciencenordic.com... The law is not only for court cases. Court cases occur when the law applying to an individual is suspected as having been disobeyed where it should have been obeyed. They must obey the law at all times outside of the court room and the law applies throughout an entire action at all times. It has no time that it switches on or off. The consent of children is nonexistent, according to the law, both inside and outside of a courtroom. I am still at a loss as to why on Earth you are asking a vegan to break their entire code of ethics to curse their child's soul when they can avoid doing so and be happier, as can the child. You again lie that vegetarians would get sick form eating meat. This is a lie. I am telling you to your face that you are absolutely lying and that your own source contradicts you and you continue to lie. This is severely poor conduct on your part. I have no idea as to why you would condone bullying a vegetarian to make them eat meat as remotely acceptable. I , additionally, do not understand why this means the parents should allow their kid to eat meat once in their life or how there is any relation between the two. You said, in round one, that children can force the child to eat meat. You now are retracting that statement and conceding a major point in your debate. I do not believe in karma, nor do I understand how it works but many vegetarians are associated with religions that do. http://www.pages.drexel.edu... Although Hindus prefer to call it Dharma, as opposed to Karma, the concept is extremely similar in regards to meat-eating. I conclude that there is absolutely no grounds on which parents should allow their child to eat meat once.
Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once.

My opponent concedes that the law ignores a kid's/child's ability to give consent until they reach the age of majority. Thus to bring consent up with a child/kid is futile. How would cooking meat make your heat source corrupt any more than it would make the kitchen in the restaurant corrupt for it to cook that meal for you? I don't care if you even go to 5-star restaurant, you have no idea how badly the animal you're getting was treated when it was alive and the restaurant would most likely sugarcoat it if you happened to ask them. Restaurants are too profit-oriented to care about organic produce and if you did find a farm that sold organic meat, there is still the issue of violating your vegetarian, or vegan, code to begin with. You say it doesn't harm or ruin their life forever but if you believe in karma, it can make them severely in karmic debt or if you think your child will grow up to become vegan or vegetarian they'll have a burden of guilt for having eaten that meat that will haunt them for the rest of their lives as they can't even blame the parents for making them do it, they would blame themselves for their whole life for eating it and hate themselves. There is absolutely nowhere in the law that states that kids have the right to eat meat if their parents are vegetarian or vegan. firstly you said "eating meat again" what did you mean by "again"? That would completely destroy your case. Your own source states "Not all vegetarians-turned-omnivores feel sick after their first meal back, because we don"t all have the same diets and therefore don"t digest everything the same way and with the same results." [http://www.divinecaroline.com...] They then mention that it's only those who begin at fast food outlets who begin the sickness initiation. Thus, if the vegetarian has a balanced diet, according to your own source, they will not suffer form any ailments. This, much more scientifically verifiable, source phttp://sciencenordic.com...] states that it is only going to make them will if they just have a huge T-bone steak for dinner without any other foods to supplement it. That would make anyone sick. point is invalid and actually false. The eating of meat doe snot make a vegetarian sick, it's merely how balanced a diet they have when they begin. Some vegetarians begin binge meat-eating and your own sources say that this is the only thing that makes them sick. On top of that letting the kid eat meat only once int heir childhood will not make them any more capable of digesting meat at a later stage because their stomach would have long 'forgotten' it. I don't care how hard it is to discipline bullies. You are going to discipline them because letting a vegetarian get punished for their way of life by bullying is not acceptable in the slightest. Actually, forcing a child to eat meat against their will is called child abuse. If other children do it, it's called non-sexual molestation because they touched the child's body, especially the mouth, in a way that traumatizes them. In worst-case scenarios it's referred to as blackmail.
Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once.

"This is false for a variety or reasons. First of all, "children" are, by definition, below the age of majority as theis is the exact age of a society where a child is labelled an adult [http://www.bclaws.ca......]. The age of majority is the age at which the concept of 'consent' is even considered to be possible for a person to give." All you are saying is that children are not of the age of majority. All that law says is that in court children is to be concidered a minor if he/she is under the age of 19, instead of 21. This law is intended to be used in court cases. "This is actually worse fr a vegan or vegetarian to do because if they cook it on their own grill, then they can ensure they're buying is organic whereas in a restaurant you have no clue how cruelly that animal was being treated in it battery farm environment before ending up on your plate. thus the parents are more likely to be funding inorganic farming in a restaurant than at their own home. This is especially true if the 'eating out' is a a fast-food outlet." What i meant by they dont have to use their oven, grill, etc is that most vegans and vegetarians dont cook stumtff on a grill where meat has ever been. What i was infering was that it doesnt have to make your heat source corrupt. Also, you dont have to give your kid mcdonalds, you can give him something good from a coney island or a nice restaraunt. But not too nice to spoil them. "why must the parents let their child beak one of their most sacred values for the sake of the child then regretting it ever broke the value in the first place? That's not only putting a burden fo guilt on the parents but causing hte kid to frever regret eating the meat it could have avoided eating." The reason why letting a kid break his parents beliefs is because its what they believe in. Its not your right to take away something so simple that doesnt harm them or ruin their life forever. If the child chooses never to try meat, then thats their decision. Kids have rights that they dont know they have thanks to you. "(4) "Some parents would say that you can make your own decisions when your older. But by that time since the kid has never had meat. They will get sick from it everytime they try to eat it."Plenty of vegetarians get sick from eating meat again. Very few can get away from that habit. But if the vegetarian is willing to go thru a few weeks of sickness than theyll be back to normal. A journey that few are willing to take. (http://www.divinecaroline.com...). "Then discipline the bullies, not the vegetarian." Disciplining bullies is a lot harder than you think. Most dont care avout rules and dont care about what happens to them. "They can also be forced to have sex with an older man, which could lead to a lawsuit, should we let them have a go at sex because of that?" First off, thats rape and thats illegal. Meat is not illegal and is one of the most normal things there is on earth. Second off, their is a lot more consequences to sex than there is to trying meat.
Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once.

First let's look at the moral issue. If you are vegetarian, especially vegan, you believe that eating meat is inherently immoral and that to do so is making you pure scum. If you didn't have this belief, then why are you vegetarian to begin with? Vegetarianism and Veganism is not simply avoiding to eat meat and animal-related products, it's going so far as to say that there is moral loss and scarification to one's soul or moral debt if they choose to do this. Why on Earth should such parents allow their children to scar their own soul or tarnish their lack of karmic debt? There is simply no reason at all. Let me now list Pro's arguments and disprove them one by one: (1) "It is the child's decision whether they consent to eating meat or not." This is false for a variety or reasons. First of all, "children" are, by definition, below the age of majority as theis is the exact age of a society where a child is labelled an adult [http://www.bclaws.ca...]. The age of majority is the age at which the concept of 'consent' is even considered to be possible for a person to give. (2) "I'm not saying that the vegetarian parents should cook meat on their grill, oven, etc. what I'm saying is to let the kid eat what he wants when He out to eat." This is actually worse fr a vegan or vegetarian to do because if they cook it on their own grill, then they can ensure they're buying is organic whereas in a restaurant you have no clue how cruelly that animal was being treated in it battery farm environment before ending up on your plate. thus the parents are more likely to be funding inorganic farming in a restaurant than at their own home. This is especially true if the 'eating out' is a a fast-food outlet. (3) "And if the kid doesn't like meat or he truly does believe that meat us murder, then he can choose to live that lifestyle." why must the parents let their child beak one of their most sacred values for the sake of the child then regretting it ever broke the value in the first place? That's not only putting a burden fo guilt on the parents but causing hte kid to frever regret eating the meat it could have avoided eating. (4) "Some parents would say that you can make your own decisions when your older. But by that time since the kid has never had meat. They will get sick from it everytime they try to eat it." This is an absolute lie. It is a literal biological lie. There is absolutely no correlation between time in life that one first eats meat and the probability that they will get sick from it. (5) "Plus, kids can get bullied at school fir being a vegetarian." Then discipline the bullies, not the vegetarian. (6) "Or worse, kids could try to force them to eat meat. Which could mean a lawsuit." They can also be forced to have sex with an older man, which could lead to a lawsuit, should we let them have a go at sex because of that?
Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once.

In my opinion, kids born to vegetarian households should be allowed to try meat out. Because it is their decision if they want to eat meat or not. If they do, then when they go out to eat or over to a friends house they should be allowed to eat meat. I'm not saying that the vegetarian parents should cook meat on their grill, oven, etc. what I'm saying is to let the kid eat what he wants when He out to eat. And if the kid doesn't like meat or he truly does believe that meat us murder, then he can choose to live that lifestyle. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some parents would say that you can make your own decisions when your older. But by that time since the kid has never had meat. They will get sick from it everytime they try to eat it. Plus, kids can get bullied at school fir being a vegetarian. Or worse, kids could try to force them to eat meat. Which could mean a lawsuit. I will get into much more detail with each of these things as the debate moves on. And once again, I'm not against people being vegetarians.
Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once.

I shall do this in a (c)ontention and (r)ebuttal style against my opponent's R5. C: It's up to the parents. R: And so it should be. C: Obviously you are not going to let your kids have meat. R: This has nothing to do with my own beliefs. C: If a kid wants to have meat it is his/her right as an American to do so. R: No it isn't. There is absolutely nowhere in American law that says children must be permitted to have meat as and when they want it. C: What you are saying by forcing all vegetarians/vegans to continue to do so. R: That made absolutely no sense. C: If the world's food supply runs out and the easiest thing to eat is a pig, cow, turkey, etc. you are saying is you'd rather die than let it stay alive? R: You said it's the easiest option. If i were a vegetarian, or vegan, I wouldn't take this 'easier' option, I'd survive by tougher means. C: Man hunted and ate meat for centuries and they didnt owe and karma debt to anybody. R: Global warming. C: Meat is a natural thing. R: Especially when it comes from a human being. C: The fact that you dont want to eat it is fine by me. R: I love meat. C: The fact that that you are forcing your kid to eat none of it even if they want to is a form of torture. R: No it isn't, it's a form of self-discipline, which is a very important thing to learn in maturity. C: Seriously, if you put steak in front if me and I'd have to eat beans and stuff everyday because my parents told me to would be torture. R: We should have just broken your fingers one by one instead, I guess.
Vegetarians and vegans should at least let their kids try meat out once.

I am sorry for forfeiting the last round as i was busy. And thank you for doing the same. I respect you much more now. And i am tired of repeating myself everytime. Everything im going to say to you is in the third round. Its that simple. Its up to the parents. Obviousely you are not going to let your kids have meat. But if that kid wants to have meat it is his/hers right as an american to do so. What you are saying by forcing all vegetarians/vegans to continue to do so. Also. If the worlds food supply runs out and the easiest thing to eat is a pig, cow, turkey, etc. you are saying is youd rather die than ti stay alive? Man hunted and ate meat for centuries and they didnt owe and karma debt to anybody. Meat is a naturalthing and the fact that you dont want to eat it is fine by me. But the fact that you are forcing your kid to eat none of it even if they want to is a form if torture. Seriously, if you put steak in front if me and id have to eat beans and stuff everyday because my parents told me to would be torture.
God had the right to flood the world

first; allow me to post a link to a document of biblical history not scripture. The Book of Enoch which is referenced in the Bible. http://www.ccel.org... Genesis 6 records that the "Sons of God" (200 angels recorded by Enoch) came upon the daughters of men and "knew them" and from these angels came mighty men of absolute evil. These angels also taught man wicked crafts which man was not to have knowledge of. Thus the world became wicked absolute, all flesh both man and land animal was corrupted from their original creation. These rebel angels are spoken of as those bound in chains in their own solitary place until the final judgment. I offer this series of sermons from one Jason Cooley, Baptist preacher, who explains all of this in detail. http://www.sermonaudio.com... http://www.sermonaudio.com... http://www.sermonaudio.com... And while atheist may "read the bible" they show themselves to be weak in "understanding" it. And also as to the definition of Christian...there are more "false" Christians following the "religions" of men and not the true GOD who is Christ. And yes, many Christians also do not read the Bible for if they did we would have very few using GOD to excuse sin and deviancy like homosexual marriage and condoning adulterous relationships in the church body these days. Yet God warned us that in the later days the church would be filled with apostasy and blasphemy. why didn't he snap his fingers and made everyone disappear? Because God is righteous and a righteous judge issues punishments, not reprieves and just making everyone go "poof" would have been an escape for the guilty. God made the error in the first place: so you wanted all people to be made from the single cookie cutter with no personality, no differences, no ability to be unique? God would have been quickly frustrated by people who were not different from each other since GOD is a personal being who through the scriptures is very one on one with the people he interacts with. He had no reason to flood the world accept for the reasons he made up: He did not make up the 200 rebel angels who came upon the daughters of men; this is why they are in their own special prepared hell of punishment and why Christ went to minister to them during the 3 days between his death and resurrection; to tell those 200 rebels that they failed to pervert the seed of Eve and prevent his coming. The flood and the ark were symbols foretelling the coming of the savior and the "ark" of his truth; that those who believe in him shall have eternal life and escape the final judgment on the Earth of fire. Logically, a broken rule is ultimately the responsibility of the one who made the rule: You speak of "mans" logic and "mans" logic is foolish. A broken rule is the fault of the breaker and Adam and Eve brought sin and death to the whole human race by breaking God's commandments and since they were given God's image and nature, they fully knew what would happen to them yet they chose satan over God.
God had the right to flood the world

Who is the creator of everything? Who makes the rules of the world, aka commandments and punishments? Who is the one who created the idea of sin? Who is responsible for knowing what is going to happen in the future? Who created the people? God. God is the creator and God made the rules. Logically, a broken rule is ultimately the responsibility of the one who made the rule. Therefore, if God never made rules, or sin, there would be no reason to flood the world. Hell, if he didn't make the world nothing could go wrong. God, who is in control, who sets up your destiny, is ultimately responsible for everything. He had no reason to flood the world accept for the reasons he made up. God made the error in the first place. And flooding the world was completely pointless. No evidence was left behind. In fact there is a mountain of evidence that would show why it is not true. If God can do so many things, why didn't he snap his fingers and made everyone disappear? And please, do not say that atheists do not read the bible. 80% of atheists read the entire bible, contributing the bible to the reason they are atheists, while less than 20% of Christians have read the entire bible. That means over 80% of Christians have admitted to not reading the bible. So do not try to generalize something that is completely opposite of what you are claiming.
God had the right to flood the world

Many people, a majority being atheists and self-described liberals, use the flood of Genesis to attack Christianity. They claim that Judeo-Christian GOD is a bloodthirsty mass murderer who punished the many for the sins of the few. It seems obvious that many of these people don't read the Bible or can't take the time to understand the situation that existed in the days of Noah. God not only was just in wiping all flesh from the planet (Humans and land animals) but Genesis 6 clearly states that had he not done so; the world would have been lost to total evil and absolute wickedness because 200 fallen angels from heaven had taken daughters of ordinary men and fostered children of incredible strength and incredible evil. They had also torn creation asunder through perverting animals and producing hybrid creatures and abominations. Noah was far from a perfect man, he was still a sinner as was his family but he walked with GOD and kept himself and his sons pure so the line from Adam was preserved while the rest of the vile world was annihilated. yes...GOD was correct in his action.
iPhone 6s+ vs Samsung S7 Edge

I believe the S7 Edge is better for the following reasons: 1. The device is water and dust resistant, and has withstood over 7 hours underwater in tests. This is a major advantage over an iPhone, which can short circuit if dropped in water. 2. The specs are way better than the iPhones. Especially in multi core tests, the S7 edge beats the iPhone by a massive margin. This translates into faster, smoother performance. 3. The S7 edge is equipped with wireless charging, so just drop it on the charger, wait a few hours (Oh yeah, it has Qualcomm fast charging as well), and you're ready to go. This is an easy and simple way to charge your phone, without the hassle of tangled or broken cords. 4. The fingerprint scanner is faster on the S7 Edge, which makes it all the more easy to get work done. 5. As an android device, it comes with all the compatibility and gimmicks that android has. Themes, massive range of smartwatches, Google now (which is less personable but much better at getting things done and recognizing voice), and Google chrome (which iOS does have an app for, but it isn't optimized like it is for android. Plus, it is the most secure browser available). 6. The camera is much better than the iPhones. More vibrant, WAY better low light, wider camera lens (for wider shots) and an amazing selfie camera. 7. The S7 Edge is much better to hold, thanks to curves on both the front and back, as well as a glass backing that isn't slippery like metal. 8. The display is way more vibrant, has a much greater pixel density, and the edge is gorgeous to look at. I know this is subjective, but the S7 Edge is way more beautiful to see. Now, to address your points: You called iOS more user friendly. But the fact is, if you have an iPhone, transitioning to an android is easy to get used to. iOS is more simple, but thanks to that it has way fewer features. Organizing apps on android is much more customizable as well. You said your brother was frustrated because he lost iMessage. Google hangouts on Android is arguably way more complete and offers messaging across all platforms. This includes Google hangouts on Gmail. So no matter what device you are using, Google hangouts is there. Thank you for accepting this challenge, and I look forward to your response.
iPhone 6s+ vs Samsung S7 Edge

I currently have the iPhone 6s and it is exactly what I expected out of it. Yes, the Samsung S7 Edge does have an advantage in terms of specs and other stuff, but I think that the iPhone is a better phone because it is more user friendly and it allows the user to become very familiar with the phone. My brother went from an iPhone to a Samsung Galaxy S7, and he absolutely hates it because he does not have iMessage anymore, and it just bothers him. Of course, it is a matter of taste and what you like, but personally, I believe that the iPhone is a better phone, even if it may lack in terms of specs.