BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide.

Okay we're only on round two, so before I begin decimating your faulty logic I want to ensure you are familiar with how evolution works. Let's agree on the following fact before continuing:Fact: Domesticated livestock is specifically bred for human consumption. The associated by-products (dairy and eggs) come from said livestock. It only exists and thrives thanks to artificial selection. Artificial selection is the reason why these species and their by-products exist, and without continual human intervention, it would cease to exist whether its consumption by humans is legal or not.Agreed?
Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide.

Meat, milk, and eggs are natural phenomenon that occur in nature. Banning nature is absurd. You can't ban nature.What you are talking about is forcing other people (via threat of violence) to refrain from eating these food sources. The best you can do is point a gun at someone and say, 'if you eat that egg, there will be consequences you cretin!'So now that that is established, let's get to the crux of your ideology. The onus is on you to explain what this ideology is and why you think you are right. You need to defend your position by declaring why you want these food sources unavailable for human consumption. And I suggest you make a strong case because evolutionary biology begs to differ ... big time.Your turn, go!
Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide.

Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned on the planet Earth. I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Meat " the flesh of an animal used as food" [1] Dairy "Full Definition of DAIRY 1 : a room, building, or establishment where milk is kept and butter or cheese is made 2 a : the department of farming or of a farm that is concerned with the production of milk, butter, and cheese b : a farm devoted to such production 3 : an establishment for the sale or distribution chiefly of milk and milk products "[2] Eggs " the egg of a bird (especially a chicken) eaten as food"[3] Ban " : to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done : to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something "[4] Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Ban meat, dairy, and eggs worldwide.

And now it’s time to expose the flaw of Pro’s argument in round two. We can dismiss Pro’s afterthoughts outright: II. Health A. Possible to be a healthy vegan. B. Detrimental effects of consuming animal products. III. Environment A. Trophic levels B. Amazon and ocean destruction. Everyone knows that omnivorous diets can be every bit as healthy as any other, and nobody reading this exchange honestly believes that banning meat will save the planet. So let’s focus on Pro’s focus – Pro’s main argument. Pro spent the most time on this. It was the first thing on Pro’s mind and the first thing in Pro’s outline: ANIMAL CRUELTY Pro is expecting to win this debate arguing that consuming meat, eggs, and dairy is an act of cruelty. Cruel compared to what exactly? Read through the rounds of arguments above and you'll discover what Pro is trying to avoid. Reality! Pro lives in a make believe world where in the animal kingdom, predators ripping their prey to shreds is natural (and hence not cruel), but human beings doing the exact same thing is an act of cruelty. In Pro’s version of reality, human beings are not a part of the animal kingdom but rather somehow above it, but only sometimes. Other times we are below it. Never are we an equal member. This myopic ideology runs contrary to everything evolutionary biology has to teach us about reality. This is why Pro tried to argue against artificial selection as the primary reason chickens (for example) are bred to be so fat they buckle under their own weight, yet somehow in the same breath wanted to convince you these same chickens would somehow last over a week with naturally selected predators in the wild. The worst part is this, read the resolution again and truly digest it (no pun intended): Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned on the planet Earth. The entire planet? Are you serious Pro? Conclusion: Pro is a sociopath and an ideologue who thinks the rights of every animal on the planet are slightly more important than are yours. To make matters even worse, Pro’s resolution incorporates agents of an imaginary one world government to force you to be like Pro. No thank you! Here is Pro’s summary from Round 2: V. Summary I have provided a multitude of reasons to eat vegan and to ban consumption of animal products. Remember the USA pledge "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Let liberty and justice extend to animals. Ban eggs, meat, and dairy. Vote Pro. It goes without saying that this pledge was written by a homo sapien. Perhaps Pro might consider affording all homo sapiens the same courtesy and rights as Pro does to the rest of the animal kingdom. Vote your conscience. Vote Con. Oh and here's my afterthought Stupidape (love the handle by the way) ... back to evolutionary biology no less. It is pretty well established within the scientific community that the only reason you have the mental capacity to even ponder ridiculous ideas like banning nature, is because your ancestors ate meat. Cheers! http://www.npr.org...
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is causing Global Warming

True Fact: The Lack of Pirates Is Causing Global Warming It's true. This extremely scientific graph proves it: https://www.venganza.org... You can see that as the number of pirates in the world has decreased over the past 130 years, global warming has gotten steadily worse. In fact, this makes it entirely clear that if you truly want to stop global warming, the most impactful thing to do is -- become a pirate. Contention 1: Earth's climate has always warmed and cooled, and the 20th century rise in global temperature is within the bounds of natural temperature fluctuations over the past 3,000 years. This has thought to be because of the increasing and decreasing amounts of pirates world wide. Although the planet has warmed 1-1.4"F over the 20th century, it is within the +/- 5"F range of the past 3,000 years. A 2003 study by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics found that "many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." A 2005 study published in Nature found that "high temperatures - similar to those observed in the twentieth century before 1990 - occurred around AD 1000 to 1100" in the Northern Hemisphere. A 2013 study published in Boreas found that summer temperatures during the Roman Empire and Medieval periods were "consistently higher" than temperatures during the 20th century. According to a 2010 study in the Chinese Science Bulletin, the recent global warming period of the 20th century is the result of a natural 21-year temperature oscillation, and will give way to a "new cool period in the 2030s." This is thought to be caused by the increasing power of North Korea, which the FSM finds as an acceptable replacement to his Somalian Pirates that preach his cause currently. Contention 2: The FSM is trying to create a new noodly people on earth to replace us all. As we all know, Humans are made of mostly carbon. Scientists claim this is what is causing our Global Warming, but it is the other way around! The FSM means to use this CO2 to form new noodly human like beings, and then cook them using our already presalted oceans! This is why we see our ocean temperatures slowly rising. It's because the FSM has put our planet on low boil. The only solution that we can possibly come up with for this, is to put out more carbon to smother our atmosphere, so that we can get this proccess over with, like the Chinese Scientists have shown us!
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

Alright first off, children are living breathing, people, that's what's special about them, ham and turkey both are special because they taste good, and you know why they are food in the first place? because most animals are suffering in the wild, nature, is not what most think it is, there poison, quicksand, and many other ways that suffer much more than getting killed in a factory. And have you ever heard of savaging? its where the momma or father animal eats their own children, ALIVE, we eat them when their DEAD, here's some evidence: http://www.nadis.org.uk... "It makes logical sense because when you ask a family member these questions, you get the sense that the family member is assuming that I don't know what they were eating, making excuses like guessing average roast meats like "ham", " turkey", or "chicken" Then he faces your sudden answer "no" which gives him a sign that he is just making excuses to escape the question and to carry on with life. The roast game is just a psychological mind tester. It tests the human will to tell the truth." except that the meaty that they are eating DOESNT CONCERN THEM, and no means rejection, not denial, no one even has heard of this "roast game" so obviously a lot of people would be confused. Animals do the same thing, but it was just as bad, in fact, there is no proof that Humans ate their own young And your sources make no sense as well, one is your past debates and the other is from a wikias, which is a bad source. Sorry, but you have no evidence saying that humans eat their own children. Sources: http://www.nadis.org.uk... https://io9.gizmodo.com...
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

The Roast Game is fact! The Roast Game is pretty simple First ask any family member "what is special about a holiday roast?" The family member would have the tendency to guess assumptively "Ham" "Turkey" "Beef" You say "no" to the family member Then you ask them "who or what do you think is special?" The family member says "I believe that children are special" You respond "So, you eat children for a Christmas roast?" The family member would freak out at you because he knew that the family ate children and he is surprised that you knew it too. The whole point of the game is to get your point across, which is the idea that the family eats children as their Christmas roast, and you interview and prove your common knowing and realizing of the idea or tradition that families have. If they freak out, they already admitted it. It makes logical sense because when you ask a family member these questions, you get the sense that the family member is assuming that I don't know what they were eating, making excuses like guessing average roast meats like "ham", " turkey", or "chicken" Then he faces your sudden answer "no" which gives him a sign that he is just making excuses to escape the question and to carry on with life.The roast game is just a psychological mind tester. It tests the human will to tell the truth. Asides, it is easily provable by the fact that The Roast Game itself is easy proof that families were eating their own children after slaughtering them. After they slaughtered them they did this process where they skin the children, take out any fecal matter or anything inedible to humans, slice the right meat parts off like the "roast" meat, de-bacterialize the meat, season it, then cook it, after cooking it, they eat the children. That is my proof, which is the logical explanation of the truth that is found out in The Roast Game. Which to be honest, is absolutely mind blowing. Sources: [1] http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com... [2] http://www.debate.org...
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

you have proved my point, you haven't gave me anything new, you are just rebutting my arguments, no new info whatsoever, which I can easily counter, and now you say I have to say "there" and not "their" which proves your grasping at straws to make me look bad. Proof argument cant be dead by saying the government throws the evidence away with no proof, how do you even know that in the first place, if you cant, my argument still stands. how am I misrepresenting the Google link? all the stuff about the "roast game" is something you made, that's why your name is on there, that's why I am ignoring everything else, because you made it, making the "roast game" unproven. Throughout this entire debate, you keep saying stuff about my grammar and spelling, stuff that are completely false, "that you DIDNT make. " as you can see, the "didn't" is in the middle of the sentence, why would it need an apostrophe in the middle of a sentence? you are acting hypocritical for saying my points will be taken off for grammar, when you have showed poor conduct throughout this debate Let me show you how many times you showed bad conduct: "you're wrong, again. That is the worst new argument I have ever heard" "your link is irrelevant, without spelling my name is completely ignoring the fact, which you made an irrelevant argument. " "this is a poor argument" and these are just examples. I also believe that saying you "misrepresent" something with no proof should not be looked over. Here's something new, if they really eat children, shouldn't there be witnesses? shouldn't someone notice a child be missing? its quite impossible to get rid of every person knowing that child to cover it up, so what's the deal?
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

I don't see how that sentence could take points off, either way, I say we drop it and continue the debate. I did indeed click the incited link, and it is you who also didn't click MY link, as you can see, if you look up the roast game, with out typing Bryan mullins, you just get nothing about your theory. because it is no longer noticed by the public, which means it is unproven and forgotten, people notice proved theories, You want a new argument? answer me this, if children got eaten, where are their bodies?, you see, you misunderstood me when I said "is there any proof" instead, you thought I said "does anyone else believe it" because just a few more people believing the theory does not mean it is proved true, and that's what I want, evidence. real proof that parents eat their kids, are their any skeletons? dead bodies? arrested parents who have consumed said child? I have asked you this throughout this debate, and you still haven't given me an answer. it would seem that you are using the word "misrepresent" to try and twist my arguments, and adding new "facts" to your theory to make me think I got it all wrong. In the wikia, it says that "if they freak out, they are guilty" no, they are freaking out because some random dude is asking if they are eating their own child, "Asides, it is easily provable by the fact that The Roast Game itself is easy proof that families were eating their own children after slaughtering them. After they slaughtered them they did this process where they skin the children, take out any fecal matter or anything inedible to humans, slice the right meat parts off like the "roast" meat, de-bacterialize the meat, season it, then cook it, after cooking it, they eat the children. That is my proof, which is the logical explanation of the truth that is found out in The Roast Game. Which to be honest, is absolutely mind blowing." Except the person who typed this, showed no proof in this paragraph, he/she was just spouting some theory with no physical evidence to back it up. in the end, your not going anywhere in this debate, your just repeating the same thing over and over, and you just confessed you used website you made as a source, making it false. Finally, it would seem that in the wikia, your the only one who made the pages, this is reason to believe you have few, if not zero, fellow members, this contradicts your "everyone is talking about it" statement. Sources: http://bryan-mullins-the-roast-game.wikia.com... (as you can see, He's the only one who made the pages)
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

Here is the quote with the punctuation error. "Animals do the same thing, but it was just as bad, in fact, there is no proof that Humans ate their own young" Here are some more rebuttals. 1. "you cannot misrepresent something that has no proof of existing, I looked up the roast game, not one search popped up about it, plus, I told multiple people about it and no one has heard of it. it also does not show In history books, and not one scientist has found any corpses of eaten children." You did not click the cited link from my previous round. I also meant as in DDO friends, and other friends, not what you stated. You misrepresented what I said again, but this time, you misrepresented the link I've given in my previous argument, and you lied saying that you "told multiple people about it." Also, the same argument I debunked before, use a different argument, instead of the burden of proof argument. You assume that just because it is fact, it means that it automatically has to be in books. You committed another fallacy which is called "Confirmation Bias" meaning that just because I attacked and debunked your argument, it meant that you are correct (which is false). 2. "Savaging piglets? Its killing and eating your own child, your so called "roast game"? Killing and eating your own child, I see no difference in such, and I never said that children were killed in the factories" Did you not? Here let me quote you. "Alright first off, children are living breathing, people, that's what's special about them, ham and turkey both are special because they taste good, and you know why they are food in the first place? because most animals are suffering in the wild, nature, is not what most think it is, there poison, quicksand, and many other ways that suffer much more than getting killed in a factory. And have you ever heard of savaging? its where the momma or father animal eats their own children, ALIVE, we eat them when their DEAD, here's some evidence" You said it like it was children, though I debunked this argument you made. You're essentially comparing children with other meats like ham and turkey, saying that both are special, then saying just like children, baby piglets get eaten by their own parents. 3. "you went a little off topic here, first, you say that I assume other meats taste good for no reason at all, then you continue on with your statement." Where did I say that? I never said that, that quote you made, was a lie. I never went off topic, you did. 4. "you also have no proof that the roast game is real, and wikia is a bad source, because anyone could edit the pages, creating a bias." First off, I am the only manager of the website, nobody else can edit the website. Let me reinstate the link I need you to click: http://www.google.com... Click it, then make a new argument. Don't make another regurgitation of the old burden of proof argument, Con.
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

First off, where is the punctuation error? I would like to see it if you would not mind. Otherwise, it could mean that you are trying to throw me as a debater with bad grammar, which is poor conduct. you cannot misrepresent something that has no proof of existing, I looked up the roast game, not one search popped up about it, plus, I told multiple people about it and no one has heard of it. it also does not show In history books, and not one scientist has found any corpses of eaten children. Savaging piglets? Its killing and eating your own child, your so called "roast game"? Killing and eating your own child, I see no difference in such, and I never said that children were killed in the factories, "The Roast Game in general by assuming that other meats taste good, and the children get killed in factories (which is false)." you went a little off topic here, first, you say that I assume other meats taste good for no reason at all, then you continue on with your statement. you also have no proof that the roast game is real, and wikia is a bad source, because anyone could edit the pages, creating a bias. Sources: https://www.bing.com...
Bryan Mullins: The Roast Game Is Fact!

Here are my first rebuttals. 1. "Alright first off, children are living breathing, people, that's what's special about them, ham and turkey both are special because they taste good, and you know why they are food in the first place? because most animals are suffering in the wild, nature, is not what most think it is, there poison, quicksand, and many other ways that suffer much more than getting killed in a factory." Savaging piglets have nothing to do with The Roast Game. Breathing and living is not special for children. Except that parents slaughter their own children in a secretive place, like for example, the woods. Children don't get killed in the factory, you misrepresented The Roast Game in general by assuming that other meats taste good, and the children get killed in factories (which is false). They only get killed in a secluded place like the woods, where there is no house around. Animals get killed in factories, not children. The last segment of this quote made no sense. You mention "poison, quicksand, and many other ways" but that has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about. This is a misrepresentation of The Roast Game. 2. "except that the meaty that they are eating DOESNT CONCERN THEM, and no means rejection, not denial, no one even has heard of this "roast game" so obviously a lot of people would be confused. Animals do the same thing, but it was just as bad, in fact, there is no proof that Humans ate their own young. And your sources make no sense as well, one is your past debates and the other is from a wikias, which is a bad source. Sorry, but you have no evidence saying that humans eat their own children." I'm sorry, but you completely misrepresented The Roast Game again. Of course meats don't concern them because they are the people that slaughter the child. People have heard of it, the debate got really popular. The topic and proven fact is popular when you search it on Google. [1] Wikia is not a bad source, just because it is a fan page, doesn't make necessarily make it a bad source. You have no real representation of The Roast Game, I do. The burden of proof argument is most common for this misunderstood fact. You have no evidence that the sources you linked had any real representation. They reject inedible parts, like the fecal matter, I don't see you arguing that. All you're arguing is that there is no evidence that families ate children (which is a lie), and also, that they get slaughtered in the cage (which is also a lie as well). You made a punctuation error in your argument, that would be an instant loss of S+G points. Sources: [1] http://www.google.com... Next argument, please.
Eating Disorders Should be Illegal

If that is what you believe, then I completely respect that. But, please do understand that eating disorders are natural to the human being. Sometimes, they are developed with bad eating habits (which are made by the person), but in most cases are natural. With your second reason, that is quite controversial. Why would you send them to prison when eating's disorders are usually not their fault? Even if it is, why does it matter if someone should go to prison because of their eating habits? Your argument, "if they are put in prison, they will eat less, wear less, and not be able to smoke, drive, etc., global warming and climate change will be reduce. The more people in prison, the less overpopulation there is." has no effect on this topic since that is a more straightforward statements. Thus, they can't be illegal. Sorry.