BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans can kill and eat animals

No, humans should not be able to eat and kill animals. You argue that "there is no reason we should stop" Well, I"ve got three. The first reason is because we"re being incredibly irresponsible, the second is that 58 billion animal lives every year should be compelling enough for a reason, and the third is that unlike all the predators which must live off death, we have a choice - we can. A better world to live in is one with a compassionate dominant species, not one that destroys everything for their own selfish ends simply because they turned out to be the dominant species. Afterwards, you argue that killing animals is all right so long as we treat them with compassion beforehand. Well, no matter how well an animal is treated, if we kill them for what essentially boils down to pointless luxury then what"s being said is still that their lives continue to be less valuable than our own selfish want. By principle, there"s a lot wrong with this notion by principle. Next you provide a false equivalence. "The same is likewise in our society." The fact that a free animal can even run alone gives them an immense chance of survival over that of one in a cage. Next you bring up an economical argument. I"ll admit that this argument has some merit, but I don"t see how money is a good enough reason to justify the mass slaughter of countless animals. The blood that"s being spilled far greatly outweighs the benefit, and ultimately I"m sure we could just as easily find another industry less harmful to us and the environment if we stopped eating meat. Lastly, you argue that vegetarian diets don"t naturally have B-12. Well, the almond milk I had in my cereal this morning says otherwise. I had a lot more in mind, but I found out that debates have a 2000 character limit so I had to butcher my post an incredible amount.
Humans can kill and eat animals

Humans should be allowed to kill and eat animals. Humans have fought their way to the top of the food chain for tens of thousands of years, and there is no reason why this should stop. Life is not possible without death. When I die, my assets will be given up to those who inherit them, likewise with animals. Whilst I believe that people have the right to be vegetarians, I honestly believe that if it is due to the natural view that people shouldn't kill animals because it is unethical, then they are wrong. Whilst I have physically seen some slaughterhouses, and their terrible conditions, I believe that it is human nature to kill animals, and thus, so long as animals are treated with compassion and given space, there is nothing wrong with killing animals. If you go to the savannah in Africa, you will discover that some animals cannot defend themselves anyway from wild predators. The same is likewise in our society. Furthermore, in developing nations, it is very important for the economy that animals are killed, (e.g. whilst there is deforestation in many nations like Brazil to make space to farm animals, a huge amount of investment comes through from large firms, such as McDonald's, thus boosting GDP). Finally, vegetarian diets naturally lack vitamin B-12, which has a key role in the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system. Some vegans have been led to serious health problems.
children should have a cell phone

Children should have a cell phone because if it happened an emergency and the kid doesn't have a phone nearby he could die or be injured very bad, also the kid could use the phone to use like a relieve tool (as using to talk to a friend and playing games) but there's the issue of having inappropriate things like offensive messages and 18+ videos, but that can be blocked with the parental control: "Parental Controls, also known as Restrictions,according to the: http://www.imore.com... "this allow you to set what your children can and can't access on an iPhone, iPod touch, or iPad or other phones[...], [...] as well as content by age rating, and the ability to make changes to accounts and other app settings. In other words, they're a way to block your child's access to anything and everything you deem inappropriate for them based on their age and sensitivity, and your own best judgment [...]" But this does not prevent them from entering and changing the restriction, but you can put passwords on the restricted mode to prevent the kids entering and changing the restricted mode. My conclusion: that Kids could and should have their own cellphone
The Chicago Bulls Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions

My Case:1. Coach [3]Tom Thibadeau is an incredible coach. He had an a incredible record last season and this season became the fastest coach t reach a 100 wins.2. ReboundsThe Bulls lead the NBA in rebounds per game.3. Points allowedThe Bulls have the second best defense in the NBA, a crucial part to any NBA team.4. Assists4th in the league in assists, just one aspect of their cohesive offense.5. Derrick Rose [4]Perhaps one of the best players in the NBA. Rookie of the year last year, Rose's average 23 points a game has led the Bulls to victories. BUt even without Rose, the team is still able to pull off clear wins6. Rest of Team [5]Luol Deng (16 PPG)Carlos Boozer (16 PPG)Derrick Rose (23)C.J. Watson (12 PPG)Richard Hamilton (11 PPG)etc. The team has depth, something Miami lacks. Comparison: [1], [2]1. Rebounds per game:Bulls: 1st Miami: 18th2. Points allowed (least):Bulls: 2ndMiami: 9th3. Assists:Bulls: 4thMiami: 17th4. Average win margin:Bulls: 8.6 ptsMiami: 7.35. Record:Bulls: 41 wins, 11 lossesMiami: 36 wins, 13 losses6. Win Percentage*:Bulls: 79%Miami: 74%*Despite having played 3 more games than Miami and having a tougher schedule.Sources:1. http://espn.go.com...2. http://espn.go.com...3. http://espn.go.com...4. http://blogs.bulls.com...5. http://www.nba.com...
The Chicago Bulls Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions

As much as I want to argue the Los Angeles Lakers will win, I want to be more realistic so I have to go with my 2nd worst enemy team, the Miami Heat. The Miami Heat Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions. As agreed, no semantics. Definitions: NBA: National Basketball Association. Champions: The Team That Wins The Championship. Will Be: Going to be. So let's do this.
The Chicago Bulls Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions

1. No semantics2. 8000 character limit3. Arguments cannot flow into the comment sections during or after the debate.Structure:First Round: Acceptance. Defintions. State whcih team you will be arguing for.Second Round: Arguments/RebuttalsThird Round: Rebuttals/Defenses Opponnent must argue that another team (must pick one other than the Bulls) will win.
The Chicago Bulls Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions

Dropped/Conceded Arguments: 1. Rebounds 2. Points Allowed (fewest) 3. Assists 4. WIN MARGIN. 5. Team depth 6. Record 7. Win Percentage 8. Schedule Toughness Defenses: 1. Coaching Let's just compare their records: Tom (Bulls): 104-31 77% win percentageErik (Heat): 185-110 62.7% win percentage Bull's coaching is clearly better when it comes to results. My opponent talks about coaching from last season. Tom Thimboeau was the 2011 COACH OF THE YEAR! This destroys his argument. He was also a the coach for the EAST in the 2012 All-Start Game.Rebuttals: 1. Points Scored This statistic is not relevant or indicative of how good a team is. For example: Denver is 2nd with an average of 103 points a game. But their opponents average 102 points a game, so this statistic alone does not make them better. The relevant statistic is win margin. This shows how much they beat their opponents by. Chicago beats Miami in this area. Sadly, my opponent dropped this point. 2. Field Goal Percentage Again, this statistic alone is not relevant (see above). One must also take into account the average opponent's percentage. The Bulls defense is better than Miami, in fact, that they are 3rd in the League in defense %. Miami is 5th. In 3 point %, Chicago is 4th, Miami is 5th. Defensively, Chicago has the 7th best 3-pointer defense. Miami is 27th! 3. Big Three Chicago has 6 players that average over 10 PPG. Miami only has 3. Chicago has more depth, as I showed last round. "The Big Three have more experience, more talent, and more effective." This is unsubstantiated. Deng, Hammilton, etc. have all played in the NBA longer than the Big Three. Obviously they are not more effective as their record is worse and are statistically inferior in almost every category. Conclusion: Let's see who is better in all of the following categories: 1. Win Record:Chicago 2. Coach's Record: Chicago 3. Rebounds: Chicago 4. Assists: Chicago 5. Win Margin: Chicago 6. Points allowed (fewest): Chicago 7. Win percentage: Chicago 8. Defense (Field Goals): Chicago 9. Defense (3-pointers): Chicago 10. Field Goal Percentage: Miami 11. 3-point percentage: Chicago 12. Players averaging over 10 PPG: Chicago 13. Defense (opponent assists per game): Chicago 14. Rebound Margin: Chicago Chicago: 13/14 Miami: 1/14 Sources: 1. http://espn.go.com...... 2. http://espn.go.com...... 3. http://espn.go.com...... 4. http://blogs.bulls.com...... 5. http://www.nba.com... 6. http://www.nba.com......
The Chicago Bulls Will Be the 2012 NBA Champions

1. Coaching Let's compare the two coaches and look at who really is the best coach. Erik Spoelstra: Erik's record is of coaching is 185 Wins and 109 Losses. (Currently At 3/31/2012) However, Erik may be the toughest coach yet. He led a team with only 1 star to a 7 game series while being 5th seed in the playoffs. Overall, I think that Erik is a very good coach and if compared to Tom, he has more experience and toughness while the other categories are basically the same. Tom Thibodeau: Tom's record of coaching is 104 Wins and 31 Losses. (Currently At 3/31/2012) I will not deny that Tom is a very good coach and you're facts are totally true but if you consider that period before the Big Three when Erik was coaching, the Miami Heat was a disaster. The Chicago Bulls had already Derrick Rose, Carlos Boozer, Luol Deng.The Miami Heat had cap space but had no other "All-Star" players except Dwayne Wade. Erik was able to lead them to a 7 game series with the Atlanta Hawks and a 5 game series with the Boston Celtics. So, I'm going to say Erik is a much tougher and experienced coach under their separate circumstances which means Miami Heat wins this round. Rebounds: I give you that. The Chicago Bulls are good at rebounding. Chicago is 1st place while Miami is 20th place. Chicago killed Miami in this category. Points: Miami Heat has the 3rd most points in the NBA while the Chicago Bulls are tied for 11th. This is pretty bad for the Chicago Bulls so Miami takes home this round. Points Allowed: This was epic. Chicago Bulls were 2nd while Miami Heat was 9. Chicago easily took this down. Assists: Chicago Bulls did very well in this category. They got 4th while Miami got 17th. Chicago outduels Miami in assists. Field Goal Percentage: Miami Heat is the 1st while Chicago is tied for 5th. Miami gets this category. Derrick Rose: While he is a great player with Carlos Boozer and Luol Deng, they are sadly not the equal of LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh. The Big Three have more experience, more talent, and more effective. Therefore this case makes the Miami Heat have a better outlook. Miami Heat: LeBron James: 26 points. Dwayne Wade: 23 points. Chris Bosh: 18 points. Mario Chalmers: 10 points. So it seems that the Chicago Bulls are better at rebounds, points allowed, and assists while the Miami Heat has a better coach, better at scoring, a better field goal percentage, a better "Big Three" and overall a better team. These are the reasons that Miami Heat has more of a chance to win than the Chicago Bulls. Also the regular season is much different from the playoffs. Last year, the Miami Heat had the best record and everyone expected them to win but they didn't. Therefore the regular season wins don't count for anything. Sources: http://www.nba.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://espn.go.com... http://www.nba.com... http://www.nba.com...
Paparazzi Should Be Banned.

Because my opponent forfeited his round, I can only add that anyone who has to rely on paparazzis to entertain them by pictures and petty gossip of other peoples lives, then they are pittiful. Celebrities? It seems to me that the ones who get the most attention are the ones abusing drugs, in trouble with the law, losing there children, going mentally crazy, and getting knocked up without being married. If these are the people you look up to, then you are a sad little woman. And to all those watching this debate, I sincerly hope you don't rely on other peoples lives to live yours.
Paparazzi Should Be Banned.

Quote: "Although, there are many who go to extremes and completely invade a celebritie's personal space, not as many do." Here is where you are wrong. When you turn your T.V on, there will be swarms of paparazzis running and tripping and bumping into one another. This not only has injured the celebrities, but they the paparazzis themselves. There have also been any cases in which they have taken pictures on school property, which is against the law, and also are a hazard on the highway, chasing after people for that one photo. And all for what? They invade on peoples privacy for a couple hundred bucks if they're lucky, when they could be working a real job like normal people. No one forces them to be a paparazzi for a living, because for one, they really don't make a lot of money that way, and two, it's an un-becoming job that people with too much time on there hands who don't want to work do just to annoy celebrities and get in on the somehow appealing action.
Paparazzi Should Be Banned.

I do not believe that the paparazzi should be banned. Although, there are many who go to extremes and completely invade a celebritie's personal space, not as many do. This is not an debate on those few, but paparazzi as a whole. It is their job. It is how they earn money. So many magazines, newspapers, and websites depend of photos and news on celebrities which is found through paparazzi. Also, part of being a celebrity is being in the public eye. It comes along with being famous.
I would Like

I really must be blunt. 90% of people do not like the emotional part of a debate. It inhibits their capacity to use "logic" because they become rattled. IN reality, they simply were not logically in the first place, if emotions in any way effect their capacity to interpret, read or convey information BUT like aggravated-assault, drawing out emotional instability in the opponent demonstrates mental instability. And their credibility becomes lost. Insults however are not emotional. Insults are derived from facts and evidence., Emotions are: Refusing to reflect on one's own contributions; read someone else's argument thoroughly when perhaps misunderstood; evaluate the credibility of sourced information (ex. Mars exploration slim suits); and the ability to Actually present information or facts without vague references ("Gravity is Fact", "evolution is fact.", "Carbon dating is fact") Drawing emotions out in a debate prove whether or not the opponent is actually capable of contributing. They always prove they are not. Insulting someone who refusing o acknowledge the arguments presented to them, or their own faulty behaviours, Is fundamental. When u get insulted in a debate you should reflect upon your own behaviour. Not put on your best baby face and call the person a baby. so. NO. I was genuinely apologizing; for any lack of Appreciable behaviour. NOt simply to be apologetic. I am not apologizing for things that don't need apologizing for.
I would Like

No, dont apologise. Being offensive gets peoples emotional attention. Fredrich Neitzche said we have to judge the philosophy by the philosophER! If some fat dip was making claims, we can disregard it on the grounds of him being a fat dip.You HAVE won every debate but being insulting gives you hair on your chest and chin. WIth that hair you can grow a beard and be a man.Grow it bro, and be offensive as all f*ck. Post pics of your willy, say swear words, post dank memes when they are not on topic that IS the jedi way!
The united states' defense budget should be decreased by at least $200 billion

Please don't accept unless you plan on posting!I am doing this debate again because it seems the last person to accept it when I posted it before is not going to post. They still have some time to do so, but it doesn't seem like they are going to. I don't care if I have two of the same debate going on, so I decided to create this again. Now, I will be arguing in favor of the above proposition in the title. My opponent may take any of the following positions:1) That the current defense budget should be decreased by a smaller amount than I propose2) That the current defense budget should remain the same3) That the current defense budget should be increased.I believe we should both share the burden of proof, but I am willing to settle for something else if my opponent convinces me I should have the burden of proof. What I believe my opponent should prove is that the United States currently needs to spend the amount they propose. What I will try to prove is that we don't need as much of a defense budget that my opponent proposes, and that we should at least decrease it by $200 billion and that we can afford to do that in terms of not being too weak if we had it lowered by that much.Current facts:The current US defense budget for fiscal year 2017, is $582.7 billion[1]Rules of this debate:1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults2) The total number of rounds used for argument should be the total you see here minus 1. This is to keep the total number of rounds used for argument between us even, since I am not using round 1 for argument. My opponent may begin their arguments in round 1 if they choose, but should waive round 4 if they do that. They may do the opposite if they wish though.3) The last round of argument should just be rebuttals and/or conclusions. No new arguments in this round. New facts and statistics can be shown, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's arguments.4) The first round of argument should just be main arguments, no rebuttals this round. So, if you are second to post, you should not rebut what your opponent said directly. Violation of the above rules is justification for voters to give the person who did not violate these rules the point in conduct.Sources:[1] https://www.defense.gov...
cruel intentions are meaner than mean people

I'll argue that people are worse than a cruel intention. So we got an intention. Intentions come from people. Now, why's the product worse than the source? Shouldn't we call out the person instead? This is similar to a factory, which creates poisons. Would you say that the poison is the worse than what's creating the poison? It originated from the factory, so we'd assume the factory is more immoral. Likewise, intentions come from people. Where do these intentions come from? Ourselves. What causes the intentions to become real? Other people. Going back to my poison factory anology, which is worse, the poison, or the factory that's creating the poison?
cruel intentions are meaner than mean people

People with cruel intentions are meaner than mean people because they are harming the people for no use. They just want to harm people or create disputes among people. They are two faced people whose eyes burn when they see everything working fine. At least mean people can be identified by experience but cruel intentions can't be. Cruel intentions are the best things for making worst things. Cruel intentions are the armor of people who can't do anything good and hence they make others too not to do good. Cruel intentions are philippic for society.
Obamacare is not good for the country

This is likely going to be a series of forfeits. So I'll just post some advantages the Patient's bill of rights which came from Federal law a decade ago. All patients should be guaranteed the following freedoms: To seek consultation with the physician(s) of their choice; To contract with their physician(s) on mutually agreeable terms; To be treated confidentially, with access to their records limited to those involved in their care or designated by the patient; To use their own resources to purchase the care of their choice; To refuse medical treatment even if it is recommended by their physician(s); To be informed about their medical condition, the risks and benefits of treatment and appropriate alternatives; To refuse third-party interference in their medical care, and to be confident that their actions in seeking or declining medical care will not result in third-party-imposed penalties for patients or physicians; To receive full disclosure of their insurance plan in plain language, including: CONTRACTS: A copy of the contract between the physician and health care plan, and between the patient or employer and the plan; INCENTIVES: Whether participating physicians are offered financial incentives to reduce treatment or ration care; COST: The full cost of the plan, including copayments, coinsurance, and deductibles; COVERAGE: Benefits covered and excluded, including availability and location of 24-hour emergency care; QUALIFICATIONS: A roster and qualifications of participating physicians; APPROVAL PROCEDURES: Authorization procedures for services, whether doctors need approval of a committee or any other individual, and who decides what is medically necessary; REFERRALS: Procedures for consulting a specialist, and who must authorize the referral; APPEALS: Grievance procedures for claim or treatment denials; GAG RULE: Whether physicians are subject to a gag rule, preventing criticism of the plan.