BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Experts' Tier FINALE: Environmental Protections vs. Resource Extraction

Ill only provide a last round summary as agreed upon earlier in the debate The best way for governments in developing countries to be able to provide a better lifestyle for its people is to spend ample amounts of money on things like electricity, healthcare, education, sanitation, etc. The problem is though that developing countries usually do not have such massive amounts of money to spend, and the only way for them to get that much money is to be able to get a taxable middle class, which can only be made possible under an industrializing or post-industrialized economy. Therefore, industrialization is the key to allowing for governments to improve the lifestyle of its people, since it opens the door for a taxable middle class to become possible. One of the best ways for developing nations to industrialize is through resource extraction, because even though its just a temporary means of building a developed economy, it is the quickest and easiest way to get the process of industrialization off and running. Prioritizing environmental protection over resource extraction will only slow down the process of industrialization, which can impact several generations and deprive those people of possibly obtaining a better lifestyle sooner. in addition to that, there isnt a strong correlation between economic performance and environmental conservation, and new technologies allow for humanity and governments to correct environmental problems caused by industrialization, meaning that harm done to the environment will not be permanent. And that is why developing countries should prioritize Resource Extraction over Environmental Protection. thanks for the debate bsh :D
Jews CAN eat pork by the law of Moses.

How does your statement refute my claim? Other than being an ad hominem attack, It literally stated that you, A self-proclaimed Jew, Eats pork, Which if anything corroborates my claim, Not refutes it. And don't assume that I have a "pp" at all. You only have my word that I'm a male, And seeing as you just claimed that you are a "gay transgender indian neo nazi jew, " you really shouldn't believe anything someone tells you. I will argue towards my original claim as soon as you start taking the debate seriously.
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

(Response 1) Under ruling 3, the person contending only has to abide by rulings 1-6. (Response 2) Ruling 6 however obviously advocates that the person instigating and contending both have the opportunity to produce new rulings in each argumentation period. (Response 3) Ruling 3 however allows the person contending to not have such an opportunity. (Response 4) Such a contradiction has resulted in ruling 3 being dismissed from our contest. (Response 5) The person contending attempts to justify his loss of ruling 3 by stating that I changed my position from one argumentation period to the next. (Response 6) Such a point is completely moot as the resolution advocates that one must abide by the rulings. (Response 7) Shifting advocacy was not a ruling in our contest. (Response 8) Next the person contending advocates that my ruling 4.5 actually contradicts his ruling 2. Untrue. (Response 9) His ruling states the person contending can produce a maximum of 110 rulings in argumentation periods 2-4. (Response 10) The fact that his argumentation periods is plural means that it is referring to 110 rulings in each argumentation period. (Response 11) Furthermore there is simply not a way to contradict ruling 2, the operative word here is can. (Response 12) Meaning the person contending can produce a maximum of 110 rulings if desired or Logical-Master can produce a maximum of 1000 rulings if Logical-Master desires. (Response 13) The only thing that could contradict ruling 2 would be a ruling stating that Logical-Master cannot produce 110 rulings per argumentation period. (Response 14) The fact that the person contending has violated rulings 4.5 once again makes all of his new rulings a direct contradiction of it. (Response 15) Thus they are thrown out of the contest. (Response 16) Which means my violations of such rulings are moot and I have not yet violated any ruling. (Response 17) Finally the person contending advocates that I violate his ruling 1. which states that I can only list two rulings per argumentation period. (Response 18) (Response 19) Sadly the person contending overlooks the operative word in that sentence, being: Can. (Response 20) The word can urges possibility, ruling 1 simply allows me to do something I could already do. (Response 21) I can also list 1 ruling, or even 100 rulings if I really felt like it. (Response 22) Only a ruling stating that I cannot would contradict. (Response 23) With everything above in mind I can only see where the person contending has been destroyed in our contest and must be voted down. (Response 24) P.S. I do not believe I have danced with the Devil in the pale moon light.
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

(Response 1)My contention is simple, I will prove to everyone how the person contending has just lost the entire contest. (Response 2)The person contending points out that numerical order of the rulings doesn't matter it is simply the order which the rulings were put into place. (Response 3) It is the person contending's downfall. (Response 4) Let us examine his first ruling labeled 3. It says that the person contending only has to obey rulings 1-6 in argumentation periods 2-4. (Response 5) However my first argumentation period had 7 rulings in it, being: (Response 6) 1. 1.5 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. (Response 7) Thus the person contending is advocating that Logical-Master only has to obey rulings: 1. 1.5 2. 3. 4. 5. (Response 8) As those would be the first 6 rulings. (Response 9) Unfortunately ruling number 6 states that both the person contending and the person instigating are allowed to make new rulings throughout the argumentation periods. (Response 10) Which means the person contending's first ruling labeled 3 is in direct contradiction of ruling 6. (Response 11) Thus my friends, the person contending's first ruling labeled 3 is thrown out of the contest as it falls under the mandates in the very first ruling. (Response 12) "Any ruling that violates another ruling will be void." (Response 13) Thus it means that my ruling labeled 4.5 actually does apply to the person contending and has effectively been violated. (Response 14) Now I would like my voters to look to the 1st ruling. (Response 15) It blatantly states that rulings that come before other rulings are of greater importance. (Response 16) Which means that since the person contending has broken a ruling of far greater importance than any rulings that I have broken that it will be evaluated first. (Response 17) Thus the person contending has lost. (Response 18) Also since all of his final rulings contradict my ruling 4.5 and his ruling 2 they are all thrown out. (Response 19) Thanks. (Response 20) P.S. I truthfully and coherently do not know the longest word in the English language. (Statement 1) 7.The person contending is limited to using the Spanish language for the rest of his argumentation periods.
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

The instigator's latest 4.5 ruling is to be dismissed as it contradicts what has been stated previously. Firstly, this contradicts a rule I had listed in the previous round as it requires that I abide by a rule besides the first six rules listed in this debate. As you can see, the rule which my opponent listed is the 19th rule in the round. My opponent attempted to resort to trickery by labeling his rules as 4.5 and 5.5, but my opponent has already agreed that lables are irrelevant. How is this you might ask? Well it's quite simple really. Notice my opponent's response in round 2: "Yraelz accepts every ruling." If lables were really relavent, he would have objected to the fact that I labled my rules as 1-10 (rather than 7-17). Furthermore, he would have at least objected to the fact that I labled a rule as "#3" two times in the previous round. If lables were truly important, he would have told you that all of my rules are an attempt to replace the previous rules labled 1-6 and are therefore contradictory (thus making them null and void). There's also the fact that the PRO lables his rules with a ".5" (thus making them sub rules) despite that these rules have nothing to do with the rules they are subbing. With that said, we must only consider rules by their numerical order. Secondly, the Instigator has violated the 2nd rule. This is in reference to his most recent rule which concerns him merely having to state that Logical-Master has failed. He says this makes him the winner (which would automatically make me the loser). As you can see, I don't have a chance to avoid this rule after it is made. Therefore, this ruling of his is null and void. As for my rules to be added: 1) If the PRO uses the words: Statement, Statements, ruling, rulings, not, grammar, grammatically, correct, speech, speeches, himself, only, good, bad, sentence, structure, rebuttal, crap, responses, rebuttals, winning, contest, food, stamp, computer, type, typing, lable, lables, failed, person, guy, man, dude, words, violation, the, not, character, each, limit, words, lmits; the PRO will automatically lose. 2) The PRO is to address the CON as "Super Great Mighty Awesome Intellectual King Logical-Master" in every response he makes. 3) All of the PRO's sentences must each have a minimum of 50 characters. 4) The PRO's grammar must be flawless. 5) The PRO must say "bonerific" in every sentence. 6) The CON is allowed to include parts of his speeches in the comment section. 7) The PRO can only make rules which involve pizza. 8) Rules which the PRO creates cannot exceed 6 words. Question: What is the longest word in the English language?
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

(Response 1:) Yraelz accepts every ruling. (Statement 1:) 4.5. The person contending must produce a minimum of 109 rulings, that apply to himself only, in each of his speeches. Each ruling must be grammatically correct. Each ruling may not result in Logical-Master winning the contest in any way. 5.5. The person instigating cannot use the phrase, "Logical-Master has failed", a violation of ruling 5.5 wins the contest. (Response 2:) The animated character in my avatar is named Krim. (Statement 2:) Logical-Master has failed
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

1. In rounds 2-4, the instigator can only list two rules per round. 2. The CON can introduce a maximum of 110 rules in rounds 2-4 3. The CON only has to abide by rules 1-6 in rounds 1-4. 3. Having a response with more than 177 characters is not allowed in rounds 2-4 4. Forfeiting a round is not allowed. 5. If the instigator uses any form of bad spelling, the instigator loses by default. 6. The PRO must truthfully and coherently answer any question the CON asks in rounds 2-4. 7. If the CON doesn't violate any rules, the PRO loses by default. 8. The word "question" is always allowed. 9. The PRO is not allowed to ask any questions. 10. If the PRO uses the words: Rule, Rules, follow, forfeit, debate, PRO, CON, opponent, adversary, foe, lose, sex, whore, mongrel, wall, Kleptin, carpet, argument, against, instigator, contender, brittwaller, this, but, although, beem0r, he, she, him, Edward, Elric, her, or round; the PRO will automatically lose. Question: What is the name of the character in your Avatar?
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

Rules so far: 1. Rules that come before other rules are of greater importance and will be evaluated first. Rules that contradict earlier rules will be void. 1.5 Rules that force a debater to say nothing in any round will be void. This point can be argued. 2. No rule shall explicitly state that a debater will lose the debate without giving them a chance to avoid the rule. Obviously if a debater feels one of the rules has not given them this chance it will be debated and left to the voters to decide. 3. If a debater has already violated one of the rules before or at the same time that a the rule is put into place this violation shall be considered null and void. 4. A violation of any rule will result in the debater losing this debate unless explicitly stated otherwise in the rule. 5. If a debater uses any of the words: Avoid, bicep, cardiovascular, debater, ethical, fallacy, gargantuan, horse, icky, jungle, keep, llama, magical, no, optical, preacher, quality, reply, salvation, typical, ultra, violates, win, xenophobe, or zipper; that contestant will automatically lose this debate. 6. Both the pro and con may introduce new rules during their rounds.
Invasion of Russia

Once again Pro has not outlined any real evidence--or "motives" for that matter. There is literally nothing in his arguments that provides proof for or at least gives valid indication that Russia will take over the world [or rather, nuke it] if the U. S doesn't invade it. Simply stating that "everything is more controled by the government then earlier" doesn't prove anything about Russia allegedly reverting back to communism. Pro has completely failed to fulfill his BoP and has used no links whatsoever to support his claims; which are that the U. S should invade Russia, and that Russia will nuke the world, and that Russia is becoming communist once again. As well as that there's also numerous spelling errors.
Invasion of Russia

Rebuttals: Pro claims that he exclusively stated that Russia is in fact "heading back" into a communist state, and yet provides no evidence for this. As outlined in my own argument, Russia now formally rejects communism and the Vladimir Putin is a proponent of capitalism. More importantly, Pro has still not supported his claim [which is by the way, rather outrageous] that Russia will use its nuclear to destroy the entire world--which was again his initial argument. Pro claims that "humanity might die if 'we' don't invade", but gives no indication or source as to why or how humanity would die and would possible motives Russia would have. So far, Pro has failed to fulfill their burden of proof which is 1.) That Russia will not only use *some* nuclear, but enough to wipe out the world, and 2.) That Russia is reverting back to a communist state. Simply stating that "Putin is kind of crazy", doesn't prove or validate any or prove any claims made by Pro. Rather than being an established *fact*, it is his opinion and does not make a viable argument. Additionally, just because a country has access to nuclear it does not mean they will use it. On the basis of Pros "case", one could also argue that the U.K and U.S [as well as Israel, North Korea, etc.] are about to nuke the world as well. Lastly, the lives of three billion people [using Pros estimation] almost certainly do matter if there is no valid reason for invading Russia in the first place.
Invasion of Russia

First of all, I stated that Russia is heading back into a communist state. As a Polish citizen I should know that. Second of all, that is why I said To move the US armies to a smaller powerful Country, and change the uniforms to theirs. As for the death toll, Humanity might die if we don't invade, so what does it mater the lives of three billion people or all of humanity? Also did you see those numbers of warheads Russia is in control of? I have to admit Putin is kind of crazy, and with those weapons he can get the world, or at least he thinks he can.
Invasion of Russia

Debate accepted. As Pro has not outlined whether round one is for acceptance or not, I'll begin with my opening argument. Note that the BoP [Burden of Proof] is on Pro here as *they* have to provide valid explanations for exactly *why* the U.S should invade Russia. Even more significantly Pro is additionally required to outline a viable basis for his argument that Russia will use its nuclear and destroy the entire world; which is exactly what Pro has stated. Opening Argument: C1) A U.S and Russia WarIf the U.S was to in fact invade Russia, the obvious outcome would be war between the two countries. On the contrary to preventing Russia from becoming a military aggressor, such an invasion would provide a valid reason for Russia to retaliate against the U.S and take military action against them. The involvement of U.S and Russia allies would also be likely. As with any conflict, a high death toll could additionally be a large problem--this would include Russian civilians [and U.S] civilians themselves and U.S soldiers that enter Russian territory. C2) Russia is No Longer CommunistPro also alleges that Russia is *still* a communist state and uses this for one reason for invasion. However, the fact that Russia is no longer a communist country that particular argument is easily negated. Russia outlawed the Soviet USSR in 1991 and is now officially a capitalist state, with its leader Vladimir Putin being a proponent of capitalism. C3) Russia and NuclearThe third contention here is that it is extremely unlikely that Russia will use nuclear--specifically on the entire world. Pro can simply not base their argument[s] on the fact that Russia has access to nuclear, as a total of nine countries in the world officially have nuclear weapons; including the U.S, the U.K, Israel and North Korea. Moreover, Pro is not only arguing that Russia will use this nuclear but will actually use it to destroy the entire world. The question remains as to exactly what Russia would have to gain when [ccording to Pro] it would not even exist upon using the nuclear. Sources: [1.] http://english.pravda.ru...[2.] http://www.businessinsider.com...
Invasion of Russia

There are many reasons why the US should invade Russia. Just to clarify Russia is to some extent going back into communism. Now I'm not saying communuism is bad, it might be good. If only in the right hands, though Putin doesn't seem to have the right hands. The easiest way would be to elimnate him, and not diplomocy. Also if you think about, just look, Putin has 39,967 tons of Uranium which was transformed into Nuclear weapons, and to add on he is currently forming a space program. With that information shouldn't it be logical that Putin wants to be safe in space while destroying the world. He's doing just in case the explosion will go too far, which it definetly will since the estimated amount of Atomic bombs needed too destroy the world would be 350 bombs. So the amount of weapons he has is enough to destroy the world and himself completely wiping out humanity. If Humanity dies either way, by Putin or a Nuclear War, won't make a difference, though we have bigger chances of survival if we invade Russia. Though that would mean a Nuclear War, So to solve that problem we will, as some people would say, kill two birds in one shot. Let Isis go on Russia. Russia uses their weapons to annihilate Isis and then we declare war on Russia finishing it off.
Fast Food Restaurants and Obesity

Firstly, I would like to clarify the resolution. You are arguing that obesity is not caused by fast foods. I am against that resolution. And here are my arguments why:Premise s://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b99a743ffa4142d9d7f1978d9686.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com...; alt="" />Firstly, my premise is that there is a correlation between fast foods and obesity. There is a correlation, which is irrefutable. Alabama for example has 32.3% of people who are obese and is the second fattest state in America. Unsurprisingly, 44% of food eateries are fast food joints and 60% spend their dining out budget on fast foods. There is a correlation. In Mexico, the first fast food restaurant opened in 1985, and since then the average man has gained 15 pounds. The correlation is strong and impregnable. And it is the fault of fast food restaurants for a variety of reasons.I. Fast Food Restaurants are the Cheaper OptionThe selling point of fast foods is their price. Considering the 2008 recession had slowed the economy, people want the cheaper option. They will always go for the cheaper option and this is obvious. Fast foods do this on purpose to drive the traffic needed. It is not the fault with the people, they want to save money in times of economic turmoil, and fast foods. It is unsurprising that McDonald's had a 3.8% comparable sales growth. They offer cheap food which people will succumb to.II. Fast Foods are the Easier OptionThis point is simple. Fast foods offers service quickly. People can eat without hassle. The amount of effort which is needed into making food is nullified by fast foods. This is what we see in Chile, where since 1989 people have been getting fatter as a result of fast foods.III. Fast Foods are the Popular OptionFast foods are advertised well. McDonald's is recognisable to 94% of the entire population. The correct amount of advertising and promotion make McDonald's seem like the exclusive option. Even with the price, the popularity of it and its presence gives it the impression that it is worth buying and worth eating. And with a price that cheap, who wouldn't.IV. All of These are the Fault of Fast Food ChainsEasy, cheap, popular and tasty is the selling point of fast food chains. It is the advertising, price and business strategies set by the companies to make people want to eat their products. That is how business works, and people do. Even with discretion they are pressured by advertising and economic problems. This is why people are becoming more obese. It may be their choice, but when it is still tasty, allows them to save more money and is popular and will not fail, they cannot help but buy fast foods. It is schematic business that has driven obesity forward and the facts are there to prove it, and reasons why obvious.Sources:http://www.businessinsider.com...http://www.health.com...http://www.allproudamericans.com...http://healthynorthcoast.org.au...http://ucanr.edu...http://www.nj.com...
Fast Food Restaurants and Obesity

Are we taking it to far for blaming fast food restaurants, like McDonald's, for obesity? When is it the individuals fault and when is it the restaurants fault? If we are talking about obesity, I believe it is the individual who is consuming the food who is to blame. Many people if not all people know that fast food is bad food for one's health. If they don't know it is bad for one's health, almost all people are aware that fast food is not the healthiest food choice. McDonald's do not shove happy meals down people's throats. Everyone has free will and the individual is making the decision to eat unhealthy food. The only one to blame is the individual making the unhealthy choice.