BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Donald Trump Is An Idiot

I'll give you the nuclear triad thing, but a couple statements does not define him. I would like you to give your opinion on the way he handles foreign policy. He blames the economy collapsing on them, what's your point? How do you know that most of the terrorists came from saudi arabia? And why do you care that he tweeted about the prince of Saudi Arabia? What is this about really? Trump answers SOME questions in a weird way, and he's an idiot? You come up with some reasons that doesn't prove anything, and you call him an idiot.
Donald Trump Is An Idiot

Let me rephrase some things, because I wrote that late at night when I was half a sleep. Donald Trump answered the nuclear triad question with a response that had nothing to do with the question, and only had to do with nuclear power in general, and off-topic gibberish. Even after it was rephrased, he responded by saying that he loved nuclear power. About the Puerto Rico thing, I was wrong. However, I did look more into the situation and found out he is being incredibly ignorant about foreign policy just like he is in Qatar. He tweeted that the economic and infrastructure disaster was their fault. Not to mention, and I quote, he said, "they"re all healing quickly", which is anything but the case. The U.S Virign Islands remark and the denial of Global Warming should be enough to prove his idiocy and ignorance. Also, you"re right that the Andrew Jackson remark doesn"t make him an idiot, it just makes his ignorant. Here"s your proof of his endorsement of Saudi Arabia. This is word for word what he tweeted, "I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing....", If you don"t believe anything, look all it up, I fact checked myself this time. Also, just to clarify, I"m not saying Saudi Arabia is responsible for 9/11, I"m just saying the majority of the terrorists came from there. Please respond
Donald Trump Is An Idiot

He seemed not to know that Guam and Puerto RICO are America territory? 1. you spelled "Peurto" wrong, it's Puerto. 2. He seemed not to know? That's not good enough, I need facts. When someone asked him a question about the nuclear triad, Trump answered him. The headlines for CNN say he was stumped, but they are FAKE news. He was wrong about Andrew Jackson, but that does not make him an IDIOT. I gotta give you the Qatar statement though, it was a mistake, every president makes them. Give me facts he supported Saudi Arabia.
Donald Trump Is An Idiot

He said he met with the president of the U.S. Virgin Islands. He seemed not to know that Guam and Peurto RICO were American territories. He also seemed not to know what the nuclear triad is, since he couldn"t explain what I t was when people asked him to. He claimed he came up with the phrase priming the pump, when it has been used since the 1930"s. He doesn"t believe in global warming, a scientifically proven fact. He talked about Andrew Jackson bejng involved in the civil war when Andrew Jackson died 16 years before the civil war! He has also shown no regard for diplomacy and the importance of it, literally picking a fight with our ally Qatar on Twitter! He also blamed Qatar for terrorism, before supporting Saudi Arabia, which is the country where the 911 bombers came from!
For-Profit Prisons should be Banned

Many of you believe the false information provided by my opponent. You believe that private prisons, of for-profit prisons, have worse conditions. My opponent accuses me of not providing sources without providing any himself. He has failed to say, once again, that Government prisons are better than private prisons. I am not saying that one prison is better than another, I am saying that they are equal quality, but the private prisons cost the United States less. If you like raised taxes, vote Pro. If we get more private prisons to exist more consistently through the United States, we will not need to pay nearly as much in taxes. My opponent has said himself that I have not provided sources, so here is a list of my main sources. http://sentencingproject.org... https://www.ncjrs.gov... http://www.nij.gov... http://www.debate.org... http://www.law.yale.edu... http://www.cca.com... http://www.corrections.com... http://www.bop.gov... http://www.globalresearch.ca... http://www.prisonpolicy.org... http://truth-out.org... http://civilrights.findlaw.com... http://archive.freep.com... http://www.corrections.com... All of these sources agree that the Government prisons cost more than Private Prisons, if they say anything at all about the costs. So, when my opponent says, "The fact stands that based on cost-analysis alone, public prisons are the highest beneficial choice," he is lying. This is just one example of a time when he has lied to all of you. Will you vote for a liar? Look at these sources if you don't believe me. There is also a word in the resolution that makes is clear that my opponent is going extreme on things, "For-profit prisons should be BANNED." Is there not much good that comes out of for-profit prisons? Sure, private prisons have their faults, but the benefits outweigh them. Does it not make sense to, rather than ban the private prisons, reform them so that they are better in quality than they are today? My opponent is telling you that there is nothing good that comes out of private prisons and that they need banned completely. They need a few changes, but they currently as good as Government prisons, and they have only been around for 40 years, not long enough to be perfect. These prisons are rapidly improving, and they will continue to get better. If we let them stay in the prison industry, they will perfect themselves. Thank you.
For-Profit Prisons should be Banned

My opponent has claimed many false things. First, he claimed that there are terrible conditions in for-profit prisons. Despite this, he has failed to say that government-run prisons run better than these. Many prisoners get raped, beaten, and swallow sharp objects within the walls of government prisons. Even worse, the rapers are prison guards. Besides this, those who bring in the food to prisons also bring in two unwanted things that they give to the prisoners, maggots and drugs. If you do not consider the the fact that most prisoners are in government prisons for drug-based crimes. This is like someone who goes to prison for murdering, and then a guard puts a gun in their hand. These are serious crimes. For profit prisons are also cheaper to run than other prisoners. An analogy goes great to represent this. You walk into a store and walk into the cereal aisle. You look at the Cheerios, and then at the store brand's version of it. They are exactly the same, except for the cost and the packaging. The Cheerios have nicer packaging, but the store brand is way less expensive. Which do you grab? Obviously the store brands'. Thank you.
For-Profit Prisons should be Banned

30 years ago, the government decided to see if the public could run prisons better than they can. Luckily I am here to tell you that for-profit prisons do not fail. The companies put lots of care into their prisons, making them flourish and grow to become a huge success. Therefore, , For Profit Prisons should not be banned. There might be a bit of rehabilitation in government prisons, but in private prisons, they educate the prisoners and they graduate hopefully passing the GED test to minimize the chance of prisoners returning to jail. It has been shown that prisoners under 21 have a 14% less chance of ending up back in jail (prisonpolicy.org). While it may be hard to find a job with a jail record, even with a GED, they use what they learned to educate their kids so the percentage of people in prison goes down in the next generation, not always immediate. You may wonder why for-profit prisons make sure people to come back, and there is a good reason, quality. If companies like GEO and CCA only held prisoners and did nothing for them, there would be a ton more protesters to the government, and since the government doesn"t want that, they also value quality more. Like Benjamin Franklin said, time equals money, and the more time spent fixing a company that"s not theirs the less time they have to actually help their own problems. For profit prisons are companies, and there is more than one for profit company. Therefore, prisons have to fight to get the government to let them make more for profit prisons. While this forces them to cut prices, mostly where money is not needed, but it also forces them to have better quality. As the government doesn"t want millions complaining about how bad for-profit prisons are. Many believe that private prisons should be banned, but private prisons aren"t even close to being that bad. To name one reason, where prisons give education, government prisons have their prisoners do community service, or, in other words, cheap labor to say they actually doing stuff with prisoners. The companies running for-profit prisons give the government more time to focus on other subjects.. As explained before, the government holds the power, not private prisons. You also must remember that for profit prisons have only been around for 30 years, leaving many, many years for the young for profit prisons to grow and become the ideal prison. In conclusion, while for-profit prisons do have their glitches, or faults, they can easily be made more perfect as they shape into a more perfect prison. They are especially good for only being around for 30 years. They also value quantity over quality, educate their prisoners, and are shaping into a good thing.
There is Likely No Conspiracy To Hide The Cure For Cancer

Resolved: There is likely no conspiracy to hide the cure for cancer.In other words, contrary to popular myth, it is doubtful that pharmaceutical companies (or governments for that matter) are intentionally hiding the cure for cancer from the public. The burden of proof is set on the balance of probabilities, meaning it falls to me to establish that it is more likely than not that no such conspiracy exists, whereas Con will attempt to show that it is more likely than not that there is a conspiracy to keep the cure for cancer a secret. Rules:1. First round is for acceptance2. No new arguments in the final round3. No semantics. Issues with definitions should be taken up in the comments section prior to accepting the debate4. users with Elo scores <2000 need not applyAcceptance:This debate cannot be accepted at this time. If you are interested in taking this debate, say so in the comments section.
There is Likely No Conspiracy To Hide The Cure For Cancer

Alright, I am going to have to put this into google docs. I kinda made it a bit too long, anyways the argument is long, but it's worth it. As I gathered enough evidence. Hopefully you read through it all, even though I kinda made it really long https://docs.google.com... . Hope fully this is convincing enough argument, I tried my hardest on this one.
There is Likely No Conspiracy To Hide The Cure For Cancer

Hello my friends! Today I will be arguing why there is a conspiracy to hide the cure for cancer! Let's begin! : Now let's start out with the money conspiracy. " There is far more money in treating a disease then curing it! "- Family guy . Not all good doctors are good people, hospitals get more money from treating cancer than curing it. This is how much money people get from treating cancer: . http://www.drugwatch.com... . "The drug"s manufacturer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, will charge $141,000 for the first 12 weeks of treatment and $256,000 for a year of treatment" - Wall Street Journal. Look at that, now before you say that's not a lot let's look how much people have cancer in america. How many people have cancer: . http://www.cancer.org... , this is a big list of money to add up. How many males have cancer: 6,876,600 How many women have cancer: 7,607,230 . Multiply that by 256,000 and we get 3,707,706,880,000 dollars a year. If I did the math wrong someone correct me. Anyways do you see that amount of money? This is why there is a conspiracy to hide cancer.
A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet.

First I would like to state that I misunderstood your resolution. Typically in DDO, when the resolution is about one thing being better than the other, con only needs to assert that the two are equal. I will respect your wishes now, but remember that for other debates in DDO. Point conceded on dairy products. Everyone is at risk for B12 deficiency. Vegetarians are simply much more at risk. Here is a link backing up my claim. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... They ate fruit, vegetables, and fish. And last I checked, fish was meat. Plus they had hard lives, which made them stronger, but they most certainly did not live longer. They lived to be around 50-70, but only if they managed to survive childhood. Life expectancy is more of a medical issue considering the diseases. I agree, we were made to be omnivores. Your link ignores that we are able to digest both kinds. If we were truly herbivores, we shouldn't be able to eat meat. If we were carnivores we would not eat vegetables. And we do have a set of canines. Your link also says that we don't have frontal sharp teeth. What are our front teeth then? They are obviously not molars, and not canines by far, but they are a mix. Which makes sense if we are herbivores. Our body favors a largely vegetable diet because we came from herbivore groups, but through evolution we are now omnivores. Our closest cousin, the chimpanzee, is also an omnivore. A lot in the link is false. For example, it's belief that all cholesterol is bad for you. Also that chickens and vultures look unhealthy? What? Also it says that vegetarians get a lot of protein, but that protein is hardly digested. Our bodies digest protein from meat much easier. In fact, our bodies don't digest parts of vegetables easily, like cellulose. In answer to heart disease, you must remember that heart disease comes from over consumption of meat. However, there are studies to show that lack of meat results in a higher chance for stroke. http://stroke.ahajournals.org... They believe that vegetables lack certain nutrients that help prevent stroke. So meat eaters can stop heart problems by eating less, but vegetarians can't really stop stroke. Therefore it is somewhat better to be a smart meat eater. Now your biggest concern is the life expectancy difference between the two groups. However, I looked over your link. The problem with the study is that there are WAY too many variables. Lifestyle, genetics, and stress levels to name a few. Even the article admits they don't know what is wrong. So the study should be viewed with a little skepticism. Also, like I said before, eating too much meat is bad for you. Therefore you still eat right, but that doesn't mean exclude meats. Most people don't do this. Therefore those who are omnivores have much healthier lifestyles. This was a wonderful debate, and I wish my opponent the best of luck in future debates. Thank you!
A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet.

You said that I would also like to point out that since the opponent needs to prove that vegetarianism is better, if I prove they are equal then I should win. I don't accept this.The debate is called A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet and I agree with this,you disagree with this so you believe that a meat eating diet is better.If you say that there equal this wouldn't really be a debate.If you don't agree with the conditions then don't debate. Also I agree that vegetarians should eat dairy products but I don't agree with them eating meat. Now you said that I haven't addressed your point on vitamin B12 deficiency. So I will now address that point.Yes they do have a risk of vitamin b12 deficiency but meat eaters get a risk of vitamin b12 deficiency as well. Now so far meat eaters and and vegetarians are kind of the same,however studies show that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters.http://online.wsj.com... If you clicked the link then you would have seen an article showing that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters. Also along time ago people did NOT eat that much meat,instead they ate fruits and vegetables which made them live longer and more stronger. Also meat eaters say that we were made to eat meat because we canine teeth.That is not true.http://www.celestialhealing.net... If you clicked the link you would have seen a study showing why we weren't made to eat meat.If you scroll down you would have seen an image of human canine teeth and tiger canine teeth.Our teeth are blunt not sharp.We were made to eat vegetables and fruits. Also studies show that vegetarians have a lower chance of getting cancer than meat eaters. So there is a big difference between meat eaters and vegetarians. In conclusion a vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet. Thank you very much for letting me debate with you.
A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet.

I concede your point of some vegetables have fat. I also concede that the survey wouldn't have been off if it was split 50/50. However your source says explicitly, "studied a total of 76,172 women and men living in the United Kingdom, United States and Germany. Of this total, 27,808 study subjects were vegetarians," which would mean that only a 1/3 of the participants were vegetarians. This would vastly skew the results, since those who eat meat were given double the participants. I concede your point on cholesterol. So far this means that both diets are the same overall, but you never addressed my point about vitamin B12 deficiency. Let me start by bring up some other common deficiencies. Vitamin D, omega-3 fatty acids, and calcium. Iron and zinc are somewhat common as well. I'll admit that the calcium one depends on the type of vegetarian. For the purpose of this debate may you state what you are defending? As in, can you eat dairy products? I would also like to point out that since the opponent needs to prove that vegetarianism is better, if I prove they are equal then I should win. Thank you.
A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet.

You said that fat is not bad for you in controlled quantities well in a vegetarian diet there are some vegetables with fat in them like Avocados, Olives etc. Here is a link that shows vegetables with fat in them and how much fat is in them:http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com... So some vegetables have fat in them but they are controlling that fat content in controlled quantities.Which is very good for there diet. You also said I see no reason you cannot eat meat for the benefits it has, and vegetables for their benefits as well. But if you have a vegetarian diet it has benefits of meat as well.So why not just eat veggies. You also said, Your point is valid, however the survey conducted would have had skewed results. First off most people eat meat, so there is obviously more heart problems found among them. ALL surveys are done fairly they get 5 vegetarians and 5 meat eaters test there diets and see there risk of heart disease.So if the test is done fairly then its obvious that vegetarians have a lower risk of heart disease than a meat eater. you also said that we also have to remember that vegetarians are not gaining any good cholesterol. Well vegetarians are gaining good cholesterol.http://www.dailymail.co.uk... On the link there are foods that give you good cholesterol.Now I know that some of them are NOT vegetarian foods but MOST of them are vegetarian foods. So in conclusion A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet.
A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet.

I accept. I would like to point out pro has not said I couldn't take the stance of being omnivorous, as omnivores are meat eaters as well. Point 1- You need fat sometimes. Fat is not bad for you in controlled quantities, and especially when you exercise. Also those who eat exclusively vegetables are at a higher risk for vitamin B12 deficiency. Point 2- Taking the stance of being an omnivore, I see no reason you cannot eat meat for the benefits it has, and vegetables for their benefits as well. Point 3- Your point is valid, however the survey conducted would have had skewed results. First off most people eat meat, so there is obviously more heart problems found among them. Second, we also have to remember that vegetarians are not gaining any good cholesterol. Thank you.
A vegetarian diet IS better than a meat eating diet.

I believe that a vegetarian diet is better than a meat eating diet. My 1st point is that meat eaters say that a vegetarian diet is bad because you need meat because you need protein.Well there are plenty of vegetables that have protein in them like Soy beans,Broccoli,Cauliflower,Watercress,Sweet Corn and there is a lot more. My 2nd point is that a vegetarian diet is much more healthier than a meat eating diet because there is hardly any fat in it and it has a lot of vitamin c,protein,iron,Magnesium,Calcium and a whole lot more. My 3rd point is that studies show that vegetarians live longer than meat eaters, click on this link:http://www.livestrong.com... If you did not click on the link than it shows that vegetarians have a lower risk of heart disease and that they have a lower cholesterol. There fore I say that a vegetarian diet is better than a meat eating diet. Thank you.
Gene Selection in Embryos

Thank you Democritas for entering the debate. I must say I do sympathize with your condition- and I stress that if it is a genetic disease, using a technique like gene-selection you could guarantee that your children can be born free from it. Firstly as to your claim that embryonic selection is reminiscent to Nazism and eugenics- you have muddled various ethical and biological issues and are claiming different things to be the same. Eugenics is based mainly on scientific models and theories that with the emergence of new genetic information, have proven to be incomplete and faulty. It is undeniably true that embryonic selection for genetic enhancement can be used as a technique for eugenics; but the fact of the matter is that the only ones ever actually practiced (because of cost- efficiency- and intended results) have been euthanasia {like the Nazi's}, legal restrictions {like China's one-child policy}, and Sterilization {practiced in North America until 30 years ago- and on a mass scale in India}. Blaming gene-selection for the many ethical nightmares caused by the various misuses of eugenics is like blaming bullets and gunpowder for the atrocities of world war II- yes they played a part but their link is not a form of guilt by association. Gene-selection has never actually been used for eugenics purposes, and probably never could, since the process in expensive, limited in range and result, and invasive to the female body. Hopefully now you realize that eugenics is a separate and distinct issue from that of gene-selection- and that playing the Nazi card is a poor way to convince people (Hey Hitler used a comb! Combs must be wrong!- sorry- out of context and anecdotal). Anyways back to the core issue: Gene selection. What does this mean? First eggs are harvested then fertilized, the result embryos then have their DNA sequenced. From the DNA sequences we can find out what genetic diseases may be present. The preferred embryo (preferred could mean many things: gender, lack of certain diseases, existence of certain traits or abilities ect.) is then selected, not altered, then implanted back into the mother in hopes of conception. Only a few embryos are harvested, and those that are not used can even be frozen instead of being discarded. the process takes place before conception- so any right-to-life argument generally collapses, and finally the limited amount of results available from selecting embryos means that the choices being made are entirely focused on disease, gender, (and more far-fetched and unlikely) appearance & intelligence. There is no possibility to create a "super-race", since we would not be capable of reproducing any more than a hand-full of healthy people (not super-strong Aryans like much fantasy has thought) due several factors I named above (expense, invasiveness, and limit of results). This is why Gene-selection should be thought of as an acceptable practice.