BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.

Pro Statement : 1. "Eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. " a) First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. b) Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. Rebuttal : 1) I state in the case that eating meat is not a huge problem now. It's just a small case. Pro is like to excess the problem like it's a doomsday or what. ( no offense ja, Hehehe. .) a) I think that there are a distinction between a land of nature for planting trees (forest area) and a land of nature for grow animals (savannah or steppe (lots of grass and water)). If there are forest that have been cut down, it mostly used to build a resident for people to live. The area of forest is not good to grow livestock animals. If you think that being vegetarian would save nature, it would be a wrong way of thinking. You still need to do both of your solution, maybe either do the reforestation, planting trees or be a vegan. b) Overweight already have a source of problems. The main problems is a no good lifestyle. In detail is like Eat a high Calories food, like meat, fried food and No body training. To prevent overweight, they need to change their lifestyle into a good one, like more body training and eat a healthy foods like vegetables. But Vegetarian is not really the urgent decision to do in this 21st Century. Disastrous can be happened if your lifestyle is no good. Arguments : 1) Freedom of Choice i can said that you have choose to be a vegetarian. It's your choice, no one can blame you to have this choice. I think it's a good choice for someone who wants to let go desire of killing or hurt animals. But, it still not a good choice if the goal is to prevent land expanding or overcome overweight. 2) Comparing method i can show another method that maybe in compare with this vegetarian thing, because of so many method, vegetarian become a no more or less effective choice than the other method. a) doing a "fast" (no eating in full a day or half a day) b) Meditate c) Yoga d) body exercise, workout e) etc. .. all of this method is in term to do a good lifestyle 3) Pro's Burden a) show that vegetarian is good in ethical way b) show that why vegetarian is the only choice c) show that 21st Centuries is differ than the previous or the next term to do or not doing vegetarian as lifestyle Thank You :D
Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.

I think that vegetarianism is the only moral choice in the 21st century because eating meat is becoming a huge problem now. First, to produce all that meat, large areas of land have to be used to grow the animals, when they can actually be used for something more important, like planting trees to save the nature or other stuff. Also, lots of people are becoming overweight, and that can be a large problem of the 21st century. There will be twice as many people in hospital, and that can be disastrous. what do you think?
Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.

Why i should win this debate? 1) I don't think it's a fair debate, because the government team have just found what he wanted to stand for in the 3rd Round. You are the one who created this motion. But when i rebutt your case, you just avoid some question and avoid to answer my arguments but instead try to enlarge the problem with a solution by an unlogical process to get what you wanted. 2) There are lots of my Arguments that you didn't response. Does it mean that you didn't know what to do about it? or what? 3) I already said that the point in your issue is not a Huge thing that you have thinking of. But you are inssist that it's a huge problem that have the solution by choosing a Vegetarian as "Best Solution". But i still didn't see the process that would take into the goal. I Wonder if i being a vegetarian, i didn't eat meat anymore. then everything change to be a lot of forests, no animal harming, everyone healthty and never get sick. It's just to something. So Illogical. It can't be a best solution if you just say about how worst this situation is. 4) I already bring up my other optional for your problems like going to Gym, have an exercise to lower the potential of overweight. Start to do reforestration, no illegal logging, save the gas emission to reduce the effect of Global Warming. I think this solution (Some already be done by some individual, organization, companies, industry, international organization, etc)would be more clear to get into the goal then by just be a vegetarian. 5) Why it's the best choice? why Vegetarian? why the big problems will come in the future for just not being a vegetarian? My suggestion is you show the process of what you want to do, into what you want to get. If not, it will be taste like a glass of sour wasabi with olive oil. Thanks for the debate.
Vegetarianism is the only ethical choice in the 21st century.

Firstly, I can't see why you aren't supporting other kinds of eating styles, and only stating why I am wrong. Please say why you think other kinds of food choices can be good in the 21st century. 1. I would like to stand in the "Vegetarian is just the best choice,not the only choice." (Thank you for reminding me.) 2. Also, I agree with you on the fact that the choice is the person's decision, but if a lot of people don't turn vegetarian, big problems will come in the future. Would YOU like a future with huge air pollution, all the forests cut down, etc?
Professional cycling is the hardest sport in the world

No, my opponent is incorrect. We aren't talking about muggle quidditch; my opponent never limited the debate to real sports. Anyhow, onto the arguments.Analyzing roles on pro-cycling:Domestique: endurance and speedTeam leader: speedSprinter: speedLead-out: speed and enduranceAnalyzing roles of Quidditch:Beater: Strength, power, and keen eye-sight. Some accuracy is needed for the bludgers to be hit back at other opponent team-players.Chaser: Speed, endurance, evading, and accuracyKeeper: Speed and skills (to keep the goals from being scored)Seeker: SPEED and smartness (catch the Snitch at the right time, surprise the Snitch, etc.)As you can see different set of skills and amount of skills are required for each role of Quidditch, while in pro-cycling it's just about speed and endurance, end of story. As for having to have nerves of steel in pro-cycling, although Quidditch has not caused any deaths, it is still dangerous and young students at the age of merely 11 need to overcome their fear of vertigo and fast speeds in the air.Final argument Sorry about the new argument, I promise it'll be the only one. Anyhow, in pro-cycling at least you can train with just a trainer and some friends at maximum, you can just ride around a track you designed around your house, or position your house next to the track. However, in Quidditch, there is no way one student can gather all his friends to a humongous space and manage to enchant all the appropriate balls needed to play. Thus, with no extra practice availible outside of class, the students or players would more than likely decrease in skills and have to practice even more. In contrast, pro-cycling allows you to practice on your own without too much hassle and make normal training much easier with extra-curricular training.Thus, I have shown Quidditch requiring much more different, and harder skills than Pro-cycling. Vote me.
Professional cycling is the hardest sport in the world

I would first like to say that I foolishly did not realise that wizard quidditch was a fictional sport. Going off of that I will assume the closest sport is muggle quidditch. Pro cycling is not just pro cycling, there are several roles that also need to be fufilled. Domestique- this is the person who works for the team leader for several hours at a time to allow the team leader to draft to save energy. Team leader- this person will usually not do much work until the last hour of the race when it is time for the true riders to shine. They will sometimes ride at their functional threshold power which is the absolute limit of what you can sustain for a certain amount of time in cycling for an hour. Sprinter- this is kind of self explanatory but in the end of the race, several team members will ride at up to 40 miles per hour in order to get the sprinter to a place were he can sprint (obviously). A sprinters heart will reach the maximum heart rate that their body is capable of handling. Lead-out -these are the riders that ride to the point of complete exhaustion in order to get the team sprinter to the finish line. There have been cases of riders riding so hard that they pass out.(see Stephen Roche 1987 Tour de France) There may be dangers in quidditch, but nothing like that of cycling. As a pro-cyclist, you are guaranteed to have at least one bad crash per year. This could lead to anything from facial reconstruction, a broken collarbone or femur, and in rare cases death. All of these risks and pains that riders go through are simply to help the team leader or sprinter. The other riders ride selfless to protect them. In order to become a pro-cyclist you need to have nerves of steal to be able to handle the contact and speeds they reach. On a descent of a mountain, riders can reach speed of 65 mile per hour with nothing but lyrcra and a helmet to protect you. There are also one day race such as paris-robaix that take place mostly on cobblestone. This is very harsh on the body especially whine riding a bike with no suspension. You're body gets bounced around so much it is hard to even control the bike. You can get headaches and really bad saddle sores( look those up if you want at your own risk). These races can sometimes go on for up to 8 hours. With the constant change of pace in these races, it is impossible to settle in to any rhythm
Professional cycling is the hardest sport in the world

Ha, some Quidditch games can last months, 24 hours per day. 5 hours a day for 3 weeks straight is nothing compared to over 4 weeks. Keep in mind that technically Quidditch games can last FOREVER. Pro-cycling is only pro-cycling. On the other hand Quidditch has 4 different roles that need to be fulfilled, very difficult. The beater needs to beat the bludgers while still watching out for bludgers and attempt to hit them to other players, kind of like baseball except you don't know if you're gonna get hit by a "baseball". And keep in mind bludgers are humongous compared to baseballs. On the other hand chasers have to throw quaffles throw the hoop....while trying to ignore the bludgers. Now, keepers are kind of like goalies, except they have to protect THREE hoops from the quaffles getting in! And keep in mind that they have to try to ignore the bludgers as well. And of course, there's the uber-important Seeker, who has to catch the insanely-fast Snitch...while still trying to evade the bludgers. Now, you may be like "whatever. Dodgeball has the same size balls as well." However, bludgers are made of metal [1], far more powerful than either baseballs or dodgeballs. In addition, keep in mind that everyone only has one hand at maximum, if you use two hands to catch the ball or something you're as good as dead; even the Chosen One can only use one hand at a time--because his other hand needs to steady the broom stick. "Look ma! One hand!"And look at this--he's almost falling off! As seen above Quidditch is very harmful and quite difficult to play. All the different roles require different versatility. Just when you mastered being the Chaser, you can always go back to square one and switch to being the beater. But no matter what role, the bludger is quite dangerous, and you better stay close to a beater or you'll probably be beaten up and break a bunch of bones on the ground. And keep in mind that you also only have one hand to use as demonstrated above....the difficulty multiplies from then on.Pro-cycling may be harsh, but Quidditch is even harsher.[1] http://harrypotter.wikia.com...
Professional cycling is the hardest sport in the world

There is no other sport in the world that requires you to be close to anaerobic for over 5 hours a day for 3 weeks straight. There are also time during a race that you will have to be at your maximum heart rate for several minutes at a time. It takes extreme mental focus to be able to withstand the kind of pain a professional cyclist put their bodies through. Not to mention you are away from home nearly 200 days out of the year, away from family and friends. When you are home, you are riding your bike or at the gym for the same amount of time as an average work day. You also have to keep an extremely strict diet of the right balance of carbs, protein, and sugar. If you ever happen to win a race, be prepared for the mentally taxing doping allegations and constant press that follows a race win. When you first start out as a pro the minimum salary is $0. In your 2 or 3 year you could be making as little as $20000 a year. Only a small percentage of pros are earning a good wage,
There should be 100% no tollerance for un-prescribed drugs

Now let me ask you. While you high are you even in full control of your thoughts and body? You may think you are but everyone that has smoked what you smoke say that barely have control or their body and thoughts. So what if one night you smoke a joint get high then have no idea what your doing. Get in your car and plan in your warped up high mind to drive somewhere. You dont even know where cause your high. But then you become a threat and danger to EVERYONE on the road. Does that sound like a good idea? No! And if you somehow find a way to keep yourself in your own home while high then do that whatever i dont care. If u want to destroy your own body then i dont care. But, when drugs put other innocent people in harms way, which it does ALOT of the time, then the US need to put a 100% no tolerane on illegal drugs law. No marajuana, No dope, No heroin, no drugs!! People can live their lives without drugs. The people who think they cant are just selfish and dont care about other peoples lives that may be effected.
There should be 100% no tollerance for un-prescribed drugs

Drugs are awesome. Let me tell you, when I smoke a joint, the last thing I want to do is go out and hurt somebody. All I want to do is play video games until I pass out. The bottom line is this. It's my body. I own my body, and I and I alone will determine what goes in it. You want to tell me how to live? You want to control my life? That's messed up. Why don't you focus on your own life instead of telling other people how to live?
There should be 100% no tollerance for un-prescribed drugs

Ok so first of all i would like to apologize for the typo. So drug were highly enforced for a reason. People think its only effecting them but its not. It puts others in the line of danger. People do some unspeakable things when intoxicated. Sometimes to other people. This is why there were so strongly enforced. So for the sake of other people drugs should be 100% not tolerated.
There should be 100% no tollerance for un-prescribed drugs

Jail. You really think that you have the right to lock me in a cage because I experiment with my own body? In 'On liberty' John Stuart Mill enunciated the 'harm principle' saying the only reason power can be exercised over a member of the community is so that harm dose not come to the community. It is not the role of the state to try to make us perfect people. Lots of people do things which may hurt themselves. Fat people eat sugary snacks. People smoke cigarettes, drink booze, are sedentary, etc. etc. That's their choice. The government should only be involved if someone is committing aggression against someone else. I have been out of my mind high so many times in my life, and I have NEVER hurt anyone else. As for the violence which surrounds the drug trade, this is a child of prohibition, so really the blame is to be laid at your feet and at the feet of drug prohibitionists everywhere. So chill out, smoke a joint, and stop trying to control other people's lives. Peace.
There should be 100% no tollerance for un-prescribed drugs

Well all i can say as of now is it is all up to the votes. The votes will decide it all. However my last and final point is, you said it yourself. There are times when you dont have control or your mind when your high. So let me ask you what are you going to do when you finnaly sober up and you in jail because you were high and got out of you house and hurt someone on the street huh? And it all because you though it was "fun" to be high or it "opens your mind". Because while your in that " other universe" what are your really doing in real life. I think not. So my point is in America we dont take precautions if we know what can possibly happen. You may think it only effects you but it effects others around you. Also another thing that just came to mind is where are people getting those joints. I kniw stores dont sell them. The only way most people get them is illegaly though drug deals which brings drugs to the streets. Therefore putting others in harms way.
There should be 100% no tollerance for un-prescribed drugs

Really? I wasn't aware that everyone who smoked weed had spoken on this topic. Where exactly did the billion + pot smokers make this pronouncement? Frankly I think you need to smoke some ganja and chill out. Look, drugs can be mind expanding. Now I'm not going to say that some people don't have problems with drugs. Absolutely, there can be abuse. And legal drugs are not exactly benign either. I've known alcoholics and chain smokers a plenty, all ravaging their bodies with their drug addictions. And have I ever been tripping balls so badly that I didn't know what's what and wasn't in complete control of my thoughts? Yah, that's kind of the point. But let's not pretend that just because you get high you're all of a sudden a menace to society. That's not how it works. There are some drugs and some dosages of some drugs that may provoke psychotic reactions, but they are few and far between. Many drugs are useful for examination of your psyche and personal or spiritual growth. Some are just plain fun. But stay away from 2C-B. I took some of that stuff, thought my leg was riddled with worms and rushed shirtless in a cab to the emergency room where I demanded the x-ray it.
Nihilists are hypocrites

"In the context of this debate, this is untrue. Nihilism asserts that there is no objective meaning to life. Nihilism does not require for someone to not participate in accordance with social norms." Rejecting all meanings of life means rejecting social norms. "--> My opponent has a grave misunderstanding of objectivity and subjectivity. Objective goals are ones that are independent of the mind, or of humans. They are goals to be discovered, not to be invented. There is no goal of life to be discovered, but we invent our own. For those who see no purpose or goal for living, they commit suicide." First of all, I was addressing purpose in that contention. Secondly, I could argue that all goals are independent of the mind. They are all sparked by the instantaneous collision of physical atoms. The mind is a nonmaterial thing. How can you show what goals are objective and which are not, and how can you show a link? The rest of these points are moot. Objective goals are to be discovered? All goals are discovered during life. When you are suddenly inspired to do something, you discover a goal. Nihilists see no purpose or goals for living. Are they all going to commit suicide? No, so they're hypocrites. "--> Well state the argument. Your burden of proof." Every human being has the inherent goal to protect his or her life and to protect members of the species. These are intrinsic goals. Isn't that sort of common knowledge? If you had no urge to protect your own life, you would kill yourself. Because you will not kill yourself, you're a hypocrite. That is...if I catch you countering my arguments, then you're a hypocrite.=) "--> By definition society needs to function. You could have a chaotic society however. Do NOT mistake this for an objective purpose; society is simply an institution created by man." Why do humans create societies? It's an inherent goal to establish groups with other members of the species. Furthermore, nihilists believe that morals do not exist. They believe that everything should be legalized because no action is logically preferable to another in regard to moral value. Think about that. If nihilist actually followed these ideas, society would be chaos. Nihilists don't obey their own philosophy. They don't kill for no reason. Also, this implies logical ability, and killing for no reason is not logical. http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, Nihilists are hypocrites.
Nihilists are hypocrites

All appointed definitions are agreed between my opponent and me. ~Counterarguments~ "Nihilism is total rejection of the social mores, but everyone participates in the social mores. Thus, anyone who claims to be nihilist is a hypocrite." --> In the context of this debate, this is untrue. Nihilism asserts that there is no objective meaning to life. Nihilism does not require for someone to not participate in accordance with social norms. 1. Nihilism and society "Everyone participates in life in order to reach some destination. Everyone does this because of the objective meaning of the destination, the value of the destination, and the purpose driving them to the destination. If you deny that these exist, then you are hypocritical." --> My opponent has a grave misunderstanding of objectivity and subjectivity. Objective goals are ones that are independent of the mind, or of humans. They are goals to be discovered, not to be invented. There is no goal of life to be discovered, but we invent our own. For those who see no purpose or goal for living, they commit suicide. "I argue that the intrinsic purpose of every human (every animate being) is to live!" --> Well state the argument. Your burden of proof. "Society's intrinsic goal is to function." --> By definition society needs to function. You could have a chaotic society however. Do NOT mistake this for an objective purpose; society is simply an institution created by man. "How can you say that life has no purpose? Everything you do is to achieve something in life." --> Live has no objective purpose. Your understanding of objectivity and subjectivity fails. ~Conclusion~ This entire debate boils down to my opponent's understanding of objectivity and subjectivity. He fails to realize that nihilism negates objective purposes to life, but embraces the validity of subjective purposes to living.