BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should be eating bugs

I will assume that was con's form of acceptance. 1. Economic benefits a. Farming insects is far less expensive than livestock such as cattle, swine, and poultry. A kit to farm meal worms costs around 100$ (probably less if you DIY), and will produce enough mealworms to make about 8 burger patties per month [1]. They can eat leftover scraps of food, so there is little-no overhead. Two to three pounds of beef are needed to make 8 burger patties, costing around 8 dollars per month... every month without sustaining itself. After a year, you would essentially be turning a profit (this is a very small scale farm) b. Since the cost of farming is so low, insect farming could be used to boost the economy in developing countries where there is often malnutrition. 2. Health benefits a. Pound for pound, edible insects have greater nutritional value than beef, pork, and chicken. Some species of edible caterpillars, for example, have the same amount of protein as and have greater levels of iron/vitamins than lean ground beef or fish [2]. b. Since the nutritional value is high, insect farming could be part of the solution to the problem of malnutrition. 3. Environmental benefits a. Farming insects is an environmentally friendly alternative to current popular livestock. Agricultural activities are a huge cause of deforestation [3] and insect farming, which takes up less space, could cut down on cutting down. 60% more land is needed to farm chickens than bugs, to farm pigs is 70% greater, and insect farming requires only 10% of the amount of land needed to farm beef [4]. The greenhouse gas emissions are also reduced when farming switches to insects [4]. 4. Unjustified taboo a. Eating insects is more of a culturally ingrained "ick" factor than a legitimate one. Two billion people around the world already do eat insects and before the human species started growing crops, insects were considered a delicacy by all. When humans started growing crops and insects messed them up is when humans stopped eating bugs. Now, with pesticides, we don't have that problem anymore and there is little reason to be repulsed them. Consider crab, lobster, and shrimp. They are the bugs of the sea, they eat the crap that nothing else will eat, they have antennae and lots of little legs, and they are an expensive delicacy in many places. When farmed under clean conditions, bugs are even less "icky" than shrimp. According the reality check Con recommended to me, eating bugs is far more practical, logical, and ethical than eating cattle, swine, poultry, and even fish. [1] http://www.openbugfarm.com... [2] http://people.howstuffworks.com... [3] http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... [4] http://www.livescience.com...
Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

This is an LD Style debate, if you do not know LD do not acceptImpossible to accept, if you do... Forfeit all rounds to me. To accept please post in comments sectionI'd prefer a traditional debate (no K's, no theory)First, let me clear that I do not believe the Pro side of this People who vote on this debate ignore Round 5 CONRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Pro Constructive/Con Constructive and RebuttalsRound 3: Pro rebuttals + extensions (no new arguments, but new evidence can be brought up)/Con Rebuttals + extensionsRound 4: Pro rebuttals/Con final Rebuttals + VotersRound 5: Pro voters/ CON DOES NOTHING THIS ROUND (Kind of like IRL)For Round 5 CON: please post nothing of importance (post a joke or some random letters,) 8000 character per argument (IRL LD constructive arguments are 6 minutes PRO, 7 minutes Con) Since 8000 characters is 6 minutes 40 seconds if spoken at 5 words per second that will be the limit. 48 hours time to argue (I'm hoping we can move this debate along... I will be debating this on the 16th and I'd like to get a couple of attempts debating this in different ways)
Art and Music programs should be mandatory for students in Grade School

Students should not be required to study art and music in secondary school. Most Americans will not become musicians or artists in their life, so it is a complete waste of their time to be studying a topic that they probably have little to no interest in. Skill sets such as Math, or Science, are important to be taught in school because they can potentially lead to a multitude of different career options. There are very few career choices available for someone with an incredible drawing ability, and they are very low-paying jobs at best. Schools should have art and music as optional courses for students to take if they want to pursue that course. But as for the majority of the student populace, who most likely will not become artists or musicians, they should not be wasting their time with things they don't enjoy or wish to spend time learning. I'm not trying to say that schools should remove all musical and artistic programs, I'm simply stating that they should not be made mandatory for all students; just the students who want to do them.
Art and Music programs should be mandatory for students in Grade School

You misunderstand my argument; I'm not saying there shouldn't be any music and art programs, I'm just saying students shouldn't be forced to take them. You stated that "If they don't like it then they don't have to continue the next Quarter." In Elementary School, they take music and art year round; they can't just try it, and if they dislike it drop it in a month or two. They're forced to take music and art lessons for the duration of the school year. And it's not typically just one school year; it's 1st- 5th grade. That's up to 5 years of doing something they dislike! In most of the Middle Schools I've visited, art and music is completely optional, and students only have to enroll in them if they chose to. But I've yet to find an Elementary school that doesn't make it mandatory for students to take these courses year-long. It's a waste of schools funding, to have to provide for so many unwilling students. It'd be much better for schools at an economic standpoint, to only provide musical education for the children who want it. Also, you say that "if they need money/a job they have a talent to fall back on." Have you ever heard of the term "starving artist"?Statistically speaking, becoming a musician or an artist is one of the lowest paying jobs in America, and you have to be extraordinarily gifted to make a decent living. Unfortunately, most people aren't extraordinarily gifted. You can't master an instrument at school anyhow, it takes hours upon hours of practice to get into a school of The Arts such as Julliard; spending a mere hour each day won't get you there. Many Julliard students practice over 5 hours each day.
Art and Music programs should be mandatory for students in Grade School

It wouldn't be a waste of hours if they have a talent and they do end up finding it more exciting then they thought then they have a career. If they don't like it then they don't have to continue the next Quarter. 1 Quarter is enough to see if someone likes it or not. If they want to take it again then they didn't "waste" hours they put them to great use. You saying that they might not enjoy is fine but at least they know that if they need money/a job they have a talent to fall back on. If you don't force them and they think it will be boring so they don't take it they might not have a job to fall back on so they could be in serious trouble. I don't think kids enjoy school as it is So why not add another thing to the list. At least they can say they tried and didn't like it rather then saying I don't like it but never tried it. Trying new things won't kill you. It could make you mad,sad,or hateful but at least you gave it a shot. So it wouldn't be wasted time.
Art and Music programs should be mandatory for students in Grade School

Your argument is that students who aren't forced to take Music and Arts, will not get the chance to possibly discover a hidden talent for the arts. If a student doesn't want to learn The Arts, who are we to force them to? Lets take your proposed scenario for example, a kid is forced to play the piano at school, and in doing so, discovers he has an incredible talent for it. Just because you have a talent for something, doesn't mean you have to like it, and it doesn't mean you should be forced against your will to do it. If a student doesn't wish to learn Music, it probably won't matter how talented he discovers that he is, he still won't like doing it. That's why my proposal is for Music and Art programs to be optional. This way, students who want to learn how to play musical instruments and to paint, will be given the opportunity to do so, and students who don't want to, won't be forced to waste countless hours.
Newtown was not a consparicy

1) Though his family may not have had common sense you must use common sense in today's debate by understanding that it would be a. impossible for him to get his brother's ID after not seeing each other for two years and b. his brother just won't give out his ID to someone unstable and with the possibility that his brother could lose it leading to identity theft. 2) No he only had a rifle, if you knew about this you should've brought it up in earlier rounds. The last round is rebuttles and closing statements, so this arguement is won by con. 3) Of course teachers were on in this, why don't you think they would say that otherwise. 4) Hey I'm just going with the facts. My opponent doesn't answer my question here so by default con wins this arguement. 5) yes, but no one claimed so. 6) I'm just saying what I would do in that situation. My opponent drops the other half of this contention so by default it is also won by con. We can see in this debate pro drops a lot of my arguements so I can see nothing but a con vote. Thank you.
Newtown was not a consparicy

1.) You may not, but he might have. I don't know about you, but I don't think this family had what you call "common sense". 2.) He also had 2 pistols. Very easy to kill yourself with. 3.) If this situation was planned by the government, I don't think they can rely on the kids "covering their eyes". Especially if a plan this big is going on. Are you now saying the teachers were in on it to? 4.) Reporters say he had a gun on him. You don't believe everything else they say, why would you believe them now? 5.) Now if you are saying that the parents were part of it, couldn't they easily claim that they saw the body inside the bag? If they are not part of it, how did they have all the funerals? (I went to one, it was Ana`s) (not using that as evidence though) 6.) You may be heading out the window, but would they? Do you know how high the Windows were? If they were easy to open for little kids? Windows in elementary schools aren't made so little kids can easily jump out. Possible maybe, but not with a man shooting at you. Also no one can say how they would act until they are actually in a situation like that. You can't compare everyone to you and think they would act and do the same things you would do.
Newtown was not a consparicy

1)But he hasn't seen his brother since 2010, so how could he have gotten ahold of his brother's ID. I don't know about you but I don't just hand out my ID even to my family, it's common sense!2) This leads to the other question of how could he kill himself with a rifle, I mean that's a pretty hard thing to do. He obviously was planted with the vest and the gun and he was just some high schoolar that was brought into the building and shoot and framed.3) If they were going outside then why did they need to cover their eyes? I mean you're outside and you're not walking through the crime seen and letting the kids see this castrophe. It's obvious that they are not wanting the children to see that it is the government that did it, because kids will blab about anything.4) I know but what happened to him? He just up and disappeared. I mean if I saw a guy like that he looks suspious as a goat in a slaughter house. So it's obvious that this guy could have been the real killer. Even reports say he had a gun with him so that definately shows some suspsion. http://www.theblaze.com...;5) (look at my source #1) Usualy people are aloud to see the victums in body bags and they didn't want to see it. Isn't that just a little suspious?6) If there was a killing in my classroom then I'd be heading for a window, I'd be doing what even it was that wouldn't be staying still because that makes you a sitting duck. That doesn't matter if his mom took shooting practice, who I'm talking about is Ryan Lanza. Thus still not explaining his supposive accuracy. False they were not all kids there were a few teachers. http://www.bostonglobe.com...;I already explained how the government did this, I gave several possiblities, the Woodsman, or an agent.
Newtown was not a consparicy

1.)There are plenty of photos of him at an older age http://www.people.com... it"s possible that Ryan (older brother) had more than 1 id. 2.)Yes it is true he was wearing a bullet proof vest. But what do we know about what was going on in his head? He knew that if he was going to kill himself, it would be quick and easy. If for anyreason he was shot from someone else, he probably didn"t want to deal with the pain (assuming) He was found with more than just a rifle. He also had 2 pistols. How many people do you think were in on this? You think the government, and even actual police officers? There are too many people in the government that would tell the truth about something like this. 3.)What"s your point? 4.)Maybe he heard the gun shots, and maybe he didn"t do it? There"s a chance that he was scared and being near the school like that could lead to suspicion. 5.)They were not allowed inside the school to see their kids. It was a crime scene. The children had to be looked at where they were shot ect. Many of the parents did want to see their kids. I don"t know where you heard that. 6.)The children were all trapped inside the classroom. There was nowhere for them to go. How do you know if they were squirmy? You don"t have the proof that they were running around trying to dodge bullets. In my opinion I think they were shocked and maybe couldn"t even move. (my opinion). His mother took him to target practice. It didn"t reactivate when he was in custody. Many people knew of his problems. There were many people interviewed who knew him and talked about him. As weird as he was, there was no evidence that showed he would ever do something like this. How do you know the sources you used are reliable? If you read them, you should notice that they don"t give all the facts, they only give "their" facts. Where do you think all these kids went? There were kids killed and people have seen the bodies. And please explain if you think the government did plan this, or if it never happened and it was all made up.
Newtown was not a consparicy

I accept and in today's debate I'll show you how Newton was a consparicy.1. Why is the picture of the shooter just his childhood photos, where are his actual photos of him? This raises a great question, because it shows why don't we have photos of him before or during the shooting. This shows as a little suspious. This also shows that the suspect could have been a government goony trying to push the government's gun grabbing agenda. Many people say it's his brother's ID, but officers that who say his brother is very trustworthy and cooperative hasn't seen him since 2010.2. The death of the shooter. According to officals he was whereing a bullet proof vest, but if he was planning to kill himself why where a bullet proof vest? Also why would he want to hide his Identity if he was planning to kill himself. Also he was found with a .223 Remington Rifle, the only problem is it's kinda hard to shoot yourself in the head with a rifle, so what must of really happend is that he was just a student and the government had some goony dress like a kid, go around killing some kids and a few teachers. Kill this kid and plant a rilfe on him.3. Why were kids who were in GYM and exiting the building told to cover their eyes since that the GYM is right next to a door that leads outside thus meaning that they wouldn't see anything?4. Woodsman. There was a woodsman that was reported near the school in black jacket and camo pants who was spotted by a helicopter and was reported screaming to parents that "I didn't do it"?5. Why didn't any of the parents request to see their kids? If my kid got shot I would want to see them before the went to the morg and get preped.6. Lanza. How come Lanza was able to hit 20 squirmy children that many professionals say is a hard tarket in such a short amount of time? If a professional states that such thing is hard to do then how can someone like Lanza who just reportatibely grab someone's weponry and be that good of a sharp shooter? Ryan Lanza who before the shooting deactivated his facebook account then how did it reactivate when he was in custady? Seems a little suspious because in jail or even prision you don't get computer access. How come no one in a small town like Newton that no one had heard of Lanza's problems?Sourceshttp://theconservativetreehouse.com...http://www.enstarz.com...http://www.thespec.com...
Women should register for the selective service

Even though I hold that I won in round 1, I will entertain my opponent and the voters with some argumentation. First, I will establish that even though there may be some sentiments to the contrary, women and men are not equal. They do not, nor should they, bear teh same burdens. I'll first bring up birthing. When a man and a woman have a child, there is an unevenly massive burden on the female. This is a fact, it is not some form of oppression. It is undeniable proof that the sexes cannot have equal burdens. You speak in favor of equal burdens for men and women, but this is not possible. Consider the consequences. If all society-imposed burdens and rights, such as joining the military or being able to vote, are equal, females unfairly have a bigger burden based solely on the fact that they are female. Not forcing women into selective service is currently a way of at least partially equalizing this burden. Second, it is not practical to have women in the selective service. In general, which is the scale my opponent seeks to apply his advocacy, women are not as capable of being soldiers, both physically and mentally. Women are more frail both physically and mentally, and are much less likely to succeed as combatant soldiers. Simple, you might think, perhaps we can just give them the noncombatant roles. This makes no sense, since if we ever had a draft again, it wouldn't be noncombatant forces we'd need to replenish, since they don't exactly diminish quite as fast. So first, it's unfair, since it's an equalizer for childbirth, and second, it's impractical, since women are much less likely to suit the roles the military would need to replenish with selective service.
Women should register for the selective service

I rarely do this sort of thing, but I had qualms with your resolution, so here goes. Your resolution states that "Women should register for the selective service." Let me point out a few things before I get to my main point. When a statement such as the above is made, it is a statement about something that should change given that everything else stays the same. If I made a resolution "Taxes should be lowered," I could not argue that I meant that "Taxes should be lowered only if a law is first passed to increase taxes 100%." It is obvious that I cannot mean the latter statement, since it requires another change to make it valid. Thus, Pro is advocating that women, in society as it is now, should go out and register for Selective Service at age 18, just like guys do. Now, to my main point. Women are not even ALLOWED to register for selective service. I direct you here: https://www.sss.gov... Look at the note in the Sex box: "Current law does not permit females to register." Thus, for pro to even POSSIBLY be making a favorable assertion, new legislation would first have to be passed. Since this new legislation was neither part of my opponents resolution nor his opening statements, his stance cannot yet be a valid one, since he is urging females to do the impossible.
Women should register for the selective service

In an age of feministic views I believe that if women wish to be treated with more respect and looked upon as purely equal then another responsibility they should take is to register with the Selective Service when they turn 18. I believe fully in feminism. It is wrong to pay women less in the work place because they do not have a penis, yet they should also have to carry the same responsibilities as men. This should go for men as well of course.
Donald J Trump is a great leader

Well, I'll take your argument point by point. Donald Trump has not failed miserably as a leader in the business community as out of his many many ventures as you have said. He's only had 6 bankruptcies only because he would've made more money just going bankrupt so he didn't have to pay his expenses on it which is a smart business move if you don't want to lose an immense amount of money. (https://www. Thoughtco. Com/donald-trump-business-bankruptcies-4152019) In addition, He makes 362 Million a year easy. And he's had well over 300 business ventures that have been very successful. As you can see from the amount of money he's making. He may lose a few million to some poor choices every once in a while but it's chump change to him. It's the other companies fault for not getting their monies worth. What does businessman doesn't make sure he's paid before he makes his product? There is no need to pay them pennies on the dollar if they ask for half up front or any number or amount that they needed. As well as people who are smart should've known that Trump would have done this. It may be underhanded, But it definitely makes Trump the better businessman making as much money as he can where ever he can. Donald Trump can pay whoever he wants, As much as he wants. They took the offer, It's their choice to have said yes to his wages. If people in his casinos were not getting paid, They should just go find another job. Who's fault is it to stay with a company who doesn't pay them if the store isn't making enough to pay for them? They seem to stay so this might not happen as often as you might think. He's doing exactly as he promised, While trying to keep the Democrats happy as much as he can as long as they try to work with him. Maybe the Democrats should've gotten a better candidate if it's so easy for a "con" to make his way in there. His promises on the TPP, NAFTA, Illegals, Raising the GDP, Tax cuts, Going after industry, Having the leader of South Korea literally say Trump was the leading cause for the North Koreans to come to the table to sign off on the end of a 68-year-old war. Democrats and major news networks said it would never be done and he's getting them all done. There's been a lot of "TRUMP WILL NEVER DO THIS" and then he does it. It's just how it is, He's doing what he's promised and the people who voted for him know what he has done in his life. He's smarter than you think, Especially because your idea that he somehow has failed as a businessman is completely false. Keep in mind, I hope you read all of this. The left and the right both want different things, Depending on their idea of what good and what bad. Keep in mind those who voted for him, Voted for him because he promised what they wanted. Someone to take revenge for a party who was called deplorable. Half a nation was ousted out by a political party, And that's what happens when you divide a nation even further, You get Trump. He's not a perfect leader, He doesn't have the most articulate voice. But He's definately doing what he promised therefore a good leader.