BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

Kind Regards for you arguments. Also, I always back up my argument, otherwise it would be opinion and not a proper argument.Rebuttals and arguments:First and foremost I would like to refer to what I wrote in the comments, previous to Pro posting their statement. This was that the sources of 'Cowspiracy', mainly the FAO report, as well as basically all sources of the 'report', cannot be trusted as they are, in no way, academic or trustworthy. As such I will simply quote myself, as to what I said in the comments:"I have studied agriculture, I know what effect agriculture has on the environment very well. However, the majority of agricultural problems arising are not simply from 'factory farming'. (And with that I mean environmental, not solely emission wise)But as for their sources, here's the list: http://www.cowspiracy.com......I will analyse their sources on Greenhouse gases from top to bottom:1.) I cannot access this source. Having read up on it, it is also stated as bias.2.) Same again3.) Not scientific. Also, the authors can't calculate, discrediting them even more. According to them, 7516 million metric tons of CO2e are produced by agriculture (animals) per year, being 11.8% (while previously stating 18%) of the worlds total. They then calculate this up to 32000 million, saying that it is 50%. That would be correct if it was 11.8%, making 100% around 64000 million, however, the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org...... a source which I trust way more) is 42/46000 million tons CO2e. That means 32000 million is in no way 50%... 18% makes a number around that 100%, meaning the authors can't even do simple maths..4.) The rest is quite unrelated to the topic."Furthermore it is to note that Pro has not made a clear link between 'Factory Farming' and climate change, but only between Farming and Climate change. However, 'factory farming' makes up under 50% (around 40%) of animal related agriculture, and evidence suggests that non factory farmed animals produce more emission than 'factory farmed' animals, meaning that even they would have a higher emission than 'factory farming'. It is furthermore to state that the graph provided in round 1 is for the U.S, and it is to mention that the U.S. has one of the highest 'factory farming' sectors, with around 99% of agricultural animals held in the U.S. being held in 'factory farming' setting (https://www.aspca.org...). This would mean that, looking at above graph, factory farming most definitely is not the primary cause of man made global climate change. Pro's sources regarding greenpeace and the amazon rainforest can be disregarded, as they are not linked to factory farming. Conclusion:This means that none of Pro's sources can be seen as evidence that Factory Farming is the number one cause of man made global climate change. Kind Regards, I am looking forward to the next round.
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

I thank you for accepting. I like your icon by the way. I also like it that you didn't rely upon bare assertions and that you used outside sources to back up your claims. "According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including 37 percent of methane emissions and 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions." Should Factory-Farmed Foods Be Labeled? Ronnie Cummins "Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. [i]" cowspiracy.com " The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " greepeace.org " The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted." " Following a Life Cycle Analysis approach, the report evaluates "that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."." wikipedia "In a paper published by a respected US thinktank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent." Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent independent.co.uk I conclude that not only does factory farming cause the most amount of greenhouses emissions to be released directly. It also causes global climate change via destruction of the Amazon rain forest. Releasing the stored carbon inside the trees. Thanks for reading. http://articles.mercola.com... http://www.cowspiracy.com... http://www.greenpeace.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Long_Shadow http://www.cowspiracy.com... http://skeptics.stackexchange.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://bitesizevegan.com...
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

Kind regards for this debate. I will be representing the Con side, meaning that I will be debating that Factory Farming is not the number 1 cause of man made climate change. First I would like to define 'factory farming', being defined as "a system of rearing livestock using highly intensive methods, by which poultry, pigs, or cattle are confined indoors under strictly controlled conditions."'Man made' implies that "made or caused by human beings (as opposed to occurring or being made naturally)." This means that the burning of fossil fuels, while it could occur naturally, occurs 'man made' as the method by which fossil fuels are creating climate change and are by all means man made, as to say that a majority of emissions would not occur, was it not for the human action of burning fossil fuels, thus implying a man made action and resulting in man made climate change.Opening Statement:First I would like to refer to to the World Resources Institute's data (http://www.wri.org...) showing that the US is one of the highest contributors to emissions. That being said, I will provide the following graph easily showing the little impact farming, not to mention this includes all practices of farming, not just 'factory farming', has on the overall emissions. This graph is provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. (http://www3.epa.gov...) Easy to see, Agriculture has a minimal input of 9% on Greenhouse Gas emissions. Furthermore it is to mention, that according to the source used above, methane, the gas produced by animals, may make up an estimated 30% of emmissions in the Agricultural sector, however, thus only around 3% overall. And this is not even factory farming, just animals in total. Conclusion:As provided by statistics above, Agriculture itself is not even a major contribution to Greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that factory farming, which is an even smaller contributor, is not the number one cause of man made global climate change. Kind Regards, I am looking forward to your arguments.
I have existed for all time and I will exist for all time

I should like to respond to your rebuttal as follows: Let's say I'm a master criminal at the weekends and one Saturday night I break into the Tower of London, steal the Crown Jewels, take them home and put them up for sale on eBay. Now, let's say as I was fleeing the scene of the crime, I was set upon by the Tower's resident ravens and my nose got pecked off before I could make good my escape, and I turned up for work on Monday morning with a big hole in my face. Now, one of my colleagues, who had read all about the robbery in her morning newspaper and knew that the police had recovered a nose from Tower Green, got suspicious when she noticed that my countenance was deficient in nasal organs to the count of one and she grassed me up to the filth, and when they arrived one of the detectives took the nose they had found, placed it on my face, and it made a perfect fit. "Is that your nose, sir? " the detective might ask, to which I would be bound to reply: "Yes, officer, that is my nose. Even though it is currently physically detached from my person, that nose remains a constituent part of my body," before adding "I want to call my lawyer. " But now let's say that I avoided the wrath of the ravens but the police tracked me down using the DNA extracted from the saliva I left upon a cigarette stub which I carelessly discarded in the Jewel House as I was putting the Crown Jewels in my sack. Now, even though my DNA is microscopic, it still came from my body: it is my DNA; and the same applies to every single atom and sub-atomic particle in my body. As I stated in my opening argument, I haven't always existed as a human being and one day I will die and my body will decompose, but even though the atomic and sub-atomic constituent parts of my body have not always been, or always will be, physically attached to each other, they remain part of who I am and, therefore, because they have existed for all time and will exist for all time, so have I and so I will. Thank you.
I have existed for all time and I will exist for all time

Thanks for the debate Brian_Eggleston.Rebuttal_It is true, the matter that makes up my opponent most likely has existed for a very long time.However, the opponent's resolution states that "I," (1) as a person, have existed for all time. My opponent does not provide a specifically marked resolution to differ.Thus, my opponent did not exist as "I" until he was born as a conscious human, and thus has not existed for all time."I" is defined as the self, or the ego. (1) Thank you. Sources Cited___http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
I have existed for all time and I will exist for all time

No, I'm not claiming to be immortal, but the fact is that I have been around since the dawn of time and will be around until the end of time – indeed, it is even possible that I existed before the dawn of time and will exist after the end of time, but I cannot prove that so I will confine this debate to the space-time that exists within our current universe. Of course, I haven't always existed assembled as I am now, as a human being living on a planet revolving around one of 200-400 billion stars in one of 200-400 billion galaxies some 13.7 billion years after time (as we understand it) began. [1,2] However, the atomic and sub-atomic matter that makes up my body, which was originally created in the Big Bang and has been travelling around the universe, in one form or another since then, came together (by happy coincidence from my point of view) to make up the infant Brian Eggleston and all the food and drink I have eaten that has enabled me to grow and survive until now. Naturally, I am not unique in this claim: you can make exactly the same boast for yourself. It seems incredible that we – that is to say, the matter which constitutes our bodies - were all present at the beginning of time and we will all be there at the end of time. Well, it may seem incredible, but it's true. Thank you. [1] http://www.universetoday.com... [2] http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Atheism is a religion.

I am only allowed to defend my arguments that Con rebutted in Round 2. I will not comment on Con's position and argument in Round 3, as he does not have the opportunity to do so himself."...why isn't this the widely accepted idea?"I don't exactly know. I think it is based on the idea that atheists are anti-religious, which I have shown that they are not. Atheists are often perceived as anti-religious God-haters, when, in reality, they believe there is no god. Atheists are not malicious, by definition at least, and our society seems to think that they are."Just because it is the common belief between people is not enough reason to classify it as a religion."You either misread or misinterpreted my definition and support of it. The definition I list clearly states that religious beliefs must be fundamental. If this is left out, then anything can be considered a religion, such as the belief that you will live to see tomorrow, as one smart commenter has pointed out. Your Republican party is, for the most part, invalid. People who vote Republican do not "believe" in their political party. They may, however, believe that their candidate will be the most beneficial of all those presented; however, this too is not fundamental."You also state that because it is 'mutually exclusive' it must be a religion."Yes. I do. And I still stand by this point in its entirety, as your example of the republican party is completely invalid this time. This might have been an error on my part in explaining, but my logic was that atheism and religion are mutually exclusive with each other. You cannot be atheist and Christian at the same time; however, you can be atheist and Republican, or atheist and a Democrat, or atheist and a supporter of the Green Party for all I care. If there were an organization where it was morally or logically wrong to be part of both this organization and the Republican party, then I would consider it a political party. Again, this may have been a mistake on my part. If so, sorry for the inconvenience."It gives no replacement to a traditional religious belief." I know this isn't a part of your rebuttals and it's only part of your closing statement, but I would still like to mention it. Atheism does, in every sense, replace religious beliefs. Christians believe in God; atheists offer the belief that God doesn't exist in return.Most of my arguments still stand. Atheism is not against common religions, it is mutually exclusive in relation to religions, and it means, quite literally, "without god." Atheism, as I have shown, is a religion. I have fulfilled my BoP, and attempted, rather successfully, to rebut all of Con's arguments. Con might have refuted my rebuttals in his most recent argument (I haven't read it), but I believe my arguments were strong enough.Thanks for a good debate, Con. I'm glad to see at least someone is interested in this topic, and you held your side of the debate well.
Atheism is a religion.

You claim that because there are many different denominations of Atheism, it must be a religion. I believe that this is not true. That is like saying that there are different varieties of bananas; that statement has no meaning as to whether Atheism is a religion. re·li·gion noun the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. I believe that this definition of religion (provided by Google) is more accurate. In general, a religion needs a belief in a supreme being or an ideal. Atheism does not have these ideas and does not fit the definition of religion that I have provided.If Atheism were to be considered religion, then the definition of a religion would become too broad. In this case, many things that would not have been considered to be remotely a religion, would fit the definition and therefore become religions. My example of a political party fits this point, as well.
Atheism is a religion.

Rebuttals only this round."Atheism is not a religion. By definition, a group of people who claim not to believe in any one religion cannot be a religion."You were close. Atheists, however, aren't anti-religious. Atheists are against the idea of a god. And by definition (at least the one I have stated), a god is not mandatory for something to be considered a religion."The only thing that allows atheists as a whole to be given a common name is the fact that they lack a religious belief to begin with."The only thing that allows Christians to be given a common name is their belief in the Holy Trinity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, and other general ideas of morality. Of the hundreds and possibly thousands of denominations of Christianity, you would be hard-pressed to find concepts that all of these groups agree with. And like Christianity, atheism has multiple denominations. http://pi.vu... 6 different types of atheists, and there are surely more that aren't mentioned."Do atheists worship? If so, where and how?"No, but by my definition, worshipping is not required for religion."If they do not worship, how can atheism be considered a religion? Even buddhists pray and devote themselves, and they do not believe in a supreme god."Again, worshipping is not essential to religion. I have no example for this, as I don't know each and every religion inside and out, but worship is not crucial to a religion. Also, Buddhists don't pray, at least not in a religious sense (see definition here http://pi.vu...). Their meditation is not based on the presence of a deity.I have, in my understanding, fulfilled the BoP as it stands and rebutted Con's arguments, however strong they may be.
Atheism is a religion.

If it is as simple as you say to come to the conclusion that Atheism is a religion, then why isn't this the widely accepted idea? Just because it is the common belief between people is not enough reason to classify it as a religion. If this were true then the Republican party can be defined as a religion. As this is not the case, atheism can be viewed in the same manner. Although it is an idea shared by a large group of people, it is not a religion.You also state that because it is "mutually exclusive" it must be a religion. If this were the case, then my example of the republican party still holds true. You cannot be officially part of two parties. This is the same idea as only believing in a certain religion.Atheism is simply the lack of a religious belief. It gives no replacement to a traditional religious belief. Atheism does not have a real set of beliefs, it simply is the idea that religion and God does not exist.
Atheism is a religion.

This round, I will be stating my arguments, as I am not allowed to rebut any of Con's arguments.Atheism is not anti-religious.P1) Atheism is a belief that there is no God.P2) Religion is a set of beliefs practiced by multiple people.C1) Atheism is a religion.Nobody can argue that atheists believe that a supreme being is nonexistent, and religion clearly is a common belief of a group of people. Thus, it is rather simple to come to the conclusion that atheism is a religion. I have little else to say about this, as it is pretty hard to address a counter-argument that likely doesn't exist.Atheism and all religions are mutually exclusive.One cannot be atheist and Christian at the same time. Likewise, one cannot be atheist and Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or another religion simultaneously. Because of this, one could say that atheism is a religion, because you cannot be a part of both groups at the same time. Atheism literally means "without God."The Greek prefix "a-" means "without," like atypical or achromatic. Theos, the Greek root for "god," is clearly evidenced in words such as polytheistic or monotheism. Now, the lack of a god does not discredit the status of a religion. Presence of a god is not required for a religion. In Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, or Buddha, is not a god; however, I doubt many people would argue that Buddhism is not a religion. Similarly, atheism lacks a god or any supreme power in the universe. It can still be a religion, though. This is a rather short round, as I probably won't have much time tomorrow or Tuesday. However, I believe that my opening points are strong as they stand; I am anxious to rebut Con's points and see his rebuttals of my own.
Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religion. By definition, a group of people who claim not to believe in any one religion cannot be a religion. According to your definition, atheists do not believe in god(s). The only thing that allows atheists as a whole to be given a common name is the fact that they lack a religious belief to begin with. Do atheists worship? If so, where and how?If they do not worship, how can atheism be considered a religion? Even buddhists pray and devote themselves, and they do not believe in a supreme god. Pro must prove how atheism is a religion even though it lacks many of the important aspects of a religion.
Atheism is a religion.

In this debate I will be arguing that atheism is a religion. My opponent, jcv999, will agree to the following rules, definitions, and debate structure.Rules- This debate is, partly by nature, partly by my choosing, a semantics debate. Debating the definition of a concept or idea relates to its denotation, but also its connotation. Keep this in mind when voting.- Ad hominem attacks will not be allowed, as is standard.- The religion of the myself and my opponent should not be considered, as they have little to do with the debate itself. Definitions- Atheism- the doctrine or belief that there is no God; disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings [1].- Religion- a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects [1].- God- a supreme being according to some particular conception [1]. (Note: This is not a religious definition of God/god.)StructureRound 1: Introduction for Pro, Opening Arguments for ConRound 2: Opening Arguments for Pro, Rebuttals for ConRound 3: Rebuttals for Pro, Defense/Conclusion for ConRound 4: Defense/Conclusion for Pro, FF/empty round for ConI look forward to a solid debate by both sides.Sources:[1] dictionary.com
Resolved: An alternative for animal testing should be found.

This is the second round of Zaradi's Prized Debate Tournament. Rules:1. First round is acceptance. BoP is on me, at least for the most part.2. Forfeiture warrants a full 7-point loss, unless there is a good reason why.3. No semantics.4. Con accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions (now I sound exactly like bsh1...)5. All arguments must be made within the character limit. Sources are exceptions and are permitted to be made elsewhere in the debate (comments section, external document, etc.)Definitions:Alternative: (n.) one of multiple possibilities. [1]Animal testing: "Animal testing, also known as animal experimentation, animal research, and in vivo testing, is the use of non-human animals inexperiments (although some research about animals involves only natural behaviors or pure observation, such as a mouse running a maze or field studies of chimp troops)." [2]Found: past participle of find [3] (find: to recognize or discover something to be present. [4]I hope Beginner and I will have an interesting debate.[1] http://www.google.com.vn...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[3] http://www.google.com.vn...;[4] http://www.google.com.vn...;
Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists

I had a whole argument prepared, However for some reason it did not save and all of my work was lost after I hit 'submit. ' So, I'll just put what I posted at the end of my argument for time's sake. I will not debate you further until you do the following: 1. Show your proof since you have the burden of proof (you are pro side, And you initiated the debate). 2. Answer the questions I addressed to you that you keep ignoring. 3. Stick to your original debate topic and stop trying to steer the debate in multiple directions. The debate is over whether or not sin exists so let's keep it at that topic. 4. Continue the debate in an underogatory manner and keep good sportsmanship. Good Day.