BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Omivorous diet vs Vegan Diet

Humans are omnivores. We've been that way for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. Our digestive track is short and designed to process meats and vegetables easily, both more easily digested when eaten together. Humans eat and digest fast and frequently. Now lets look at the two other vores. (Most) Herbivores need to eat slowly all day long so their digestive tracks can break down the cellulose found in all plant life. Many herbivores have multiple stomach chambers to help with this process. On the other end, carnivores have a digestive track that is very good a digesting meat and absorbing as much nutrients as possible, so that they can afford to miss a meal if a kill is not achieved that day. http://paleoleap.com... http://vetsci.co.uk...
Omivorous diet vs Vegan Diet

I believe to have a truly healthy body, one needs to eat both plant and animal life. The opponent will argue for the vegan life style and that animals and anything made with/from animals are not necessary. Opening round is acceptance of the debate and a promise of no "AMNALS NEED ALL THE PROTECTION FROM HOOMAN FILTH!!!11!" This happened to my last debate. Pro= Omnivore Con= Vegan
Omivorous diet vs Vegan Diet

http://www.webmd.com... (Quote) "omega-3 fatty acid, is found in plant sources such as nuts and seeds. Not only does your body need these fatty acids to function, but also they deliver some big health benefits." "Omega 3 fatty acids are harder to come by than omega 6 fatty acids. Omega 3 is a form of polyunsaturated fat, and contains 3 different acids: EPA, DHA and ALA. All three of these acids can be found in plant foods, however the easiest to acquire is ALA, which is the omega 3 acid found in flax seed, hemp seed, chia seed, and also, although in smaller amounts, in walnuts and green leafy vegetablesRead more at http://www.vegkitchen.com...;So I think we can debunk the claim that supplements are required, As for the grocery bill argument. Have you seen he price of meat lately? If you do your own grocery shopping you know the price of meat has increased pretty significantly. Lastly you brought up issues with the top soil. This argument actually under lines why a Vegetarian/Vegan diet is beneficial to society. Meats takes HUGE amounts of energy to grow... I mean HUGE. Beef is considered one of the single most wasteful products we commercially produce. http://www.globalissues.org... Quote : " More than one third of the world’s grain harvest is used to feed livestock."In a time of global climate change impacting our world food producers... we waste huge amounts of energy on meat. From a purely logistical stand point meat production is wholly indefensible. The Amount of fuel consumed, the crops used to feed the animals to be killed... all of it is hugely wasteful. So inclusion: There is no such thing as a Special protein that only meat can provide, nor is there a essential fatty acid that plants cant provide. At the end of it, the sheer amounts of waste produced in commercial meat production are entirely indefensible and a significant contributor to emissions. The Human body does not require meat, and there has been no conclusive evidence provided to support that it does. A Vegetarian diet is moth More Practical, more morale and healthier in the long run than is a diet that includes regular consumption of meat.
Omivorous diet vs Vegan Diet

Let me explain why we need meat: Essential acids, proteins, and nutrients are easier to obtain by eating meat, as it contains most of that stuff. It's also cheaper to eat meat than to use supplements to fill in the blanks an all vegan diet produces. For example, you'd need pills for b12, various amino acids, Omegas 3 and 6(that's a big grocery bill). Not to mention, carnosine CANNOT be found in ANY plant. If you haven't heard of it, it helps fight off degenerative diseases, like Alzheimer's http://authoritynutrition.com... http://www.powerofmeat.com... There's also the damage large scale crop farming creates. Top soil runs out of nutrients very quickly when various veggies and fruits are in high demand.
Juvenile offenders

Thank you for your argument. The 17 year old you described did make a silly mistake and was therefore given a life sentence which may seem unfair, but it fits in with the three main resons of imprisonment. http://jamaica-gleaner.com...The first one is Punishment. The boy was punished, probably to harshly, but it was still to make sure the the next main reason for imprisonment works correctly and that is Prevention/Rehabilitation. This means that the 17 year old, after going to jail for most of his life of is highly unlikely to drink drive again as he has had a first hand experience of the consequences of drinking driving. The story of the 17 year old and his punishmen lead on the one of the most important reasons for sending people to jail and that is Deterence. The fact that one peson was given a life sentence means that someone who will see the story from the news, the internet, magazines e.t.c, will be less likely to drink drive becaus they have seen what can happen to them. So despite the fact that one person ot a harsh sentence, his story is likely to reduce the chances of anyone who have heard it, drink driving and one of those people who may have decided not to drive home after he went the pub because he's heard of the 17 year old's story might be the one to find a solution to cancer.To conclude if juvenile offenders were charged as adults it would be a case of one getting intlo more trouble and without a second chance, but therefore stopping multiple people from getting into the same situation he was in. Therefore juvenile ofenders hould be trialed as adults.
Juvenile offenders

Thank you for changing your view on it for the sake of the debate. :) yes, those facts are high but I think its unfair that just because some don't use their second chance wisely dose not mean they all do. I read an article about this 17 year old kid who made a stupid mistake of drunk driving and killed someone, yes it is a devastating mistake and he was sent to life in jail. The kid whose name was James Stewart killed himself after being charged as an adult because he lost hope because just one really stupid mistake he will be in prison forever. I would source it but I cant find it online. so, in conclusion yes some people do deserve to rot in jail forever but I think if you do that to juvenile offenders you are depriving the world of what they could do if they change. you never know they might cure cancer or something.
Juvenile offenders

Sorry for misunderstanding your first statement. Despite the fact that I agree with you, I will be arguing for juvinile offenders to be tried as adults.My ArgumentThe first point I would like to make is the mentality that juvenile offenders have. They know that the punishment for commiting a crime which would get an adult in a large amount of trouble, will not get them in as much trouble. Therefore they are more likely to re-offend. I the UK alone, 72.3 per cent of under-18s re-offended within 12 months of being released from custody for the year ending September 2011. In addition 47% of adults are reconvicted within one year of release, but nearly three quarters (73%) of under 18 year olds are reconvicted within a year of release. This happens because the punishment is not as serious. If the were tried as adults the re-offending rates will be reduce because of the severity of the punishments. This will then save money and stop youths from becoming juvenile offenders in the first place. Sources [1] http://www.cypnow.co.uk... [2] http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk...
Pineapples are a kind of apples

C1. To extend the Pigeon analogy, (and by the way, white pigeons are a breed, not a subspecies of pigeon), the fact that Pigeons and Ostriches are birds, doesn't prove that Ostriches are a type of Pigeon, or the other way around. Furthermore, the Pinapple and the apple actually have many physcial differences. The pinapple plant is a five foot tall bromeliad with thick, waxy leaves, while the apple tree is a tree with many thin small leaves, leading botanists (who have a lot more experience than Pro) to classify it as a completely different type of plant.C2.1. Actually, Angiosperms all have stems, and Angiosperms make up 80% of all plants. This means that if something is a plant, it is extremely likely to have a stem, showing that the common possession of a stem amoung plants does not constitute a "striking similarity"http://www.britannica.com...http://www.mcwdn.org...2. Semen actually has plenty sugar; it has 2-5 grams of fructose per mL, showing that Con is completely wrong. Additionally, my original argument never claimed that pinapple tasted like semen, just that pinapples make semen taste better, unlike apples.http://examine.com...3. Pro doesn't give us any sources for the 90% DNA claim. Additionally, humans share 88% of our DNA with mice, and 85% with Dogs. Dogs and mice are definitly not a type of human, just as pinapples are not apples.http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com...C3.Cons logic doesn't make any sense at all. My sceince textbook is definitly not a bible, as it doesn't talk about God or Jesus or stoning. Additionally, the bible can't be taken as a sceintific document, as it has numerous scientific errors. Leviticus 11:13-19 states that bats are birds, which is definitly not true. Further scientific errors can be found in Matthew 13-32 and Leviticus 11:20.Appologies if my reply seems a little short, I had to edit down to the bones to ft n da lmit
Pineapples are a kind of apples

C1. Kind and Categorization in nature is different from physical things. CONs attempts to argue that something being a kind of another must mean it something is a category of another object. However in nature this is different. In biological nature everything is related to each other based on the history of origin. If white crows and normal crows may be both in the category Birds, even though white pigeons may not be taxonomically categorized as a sub-species of pigeons, but they are in fact a kind of normal pigeon. On the same situation, a pineapple may not be categorized as a sub-species of apples but pineapples are indeed a kind of apples because of striking similar physical characteristics C2. Physical Characteristics 1. Stems are a very rare occurrence in nature, do humans have stems? do flatworms have stems? huh? Because of the rarity of this occurrence, this contributes to the striking similarity between the 2 2. Taste - Pineapples and Apples both have sugar thus they taste very similar, pineapples do not taste like seminal fluid because seminal fluid contains no sugar. 3. With all these striking similar characteristics combined together, would you not argue that they are almost identical in nature, with over 90% correlation in DNA. The reason why humans are a kind of apes is because of the 99% similarity in DNA. C3. The Bible - The bible is older than your science textbook making your science textbook a kind of bible. If the bible is a fairy tale than your science textbook is too.
Pineapples are a kind of apples

I will now refute my opponents arguments.1. Pinapples are taxanomically relatedPro attempts to show that Pinapples are a kind of apples, because they are both in the angiosperms and plants. This is an incorrect criterea, for a few reasons. The resolution states that pinapples are a kind of apples, implying that pinapples are included as part of an overarching group known as apples. Stating that apples and pinapples are in the same group (such as plantae or angiospermae) implies that they are on the same footing and does neccessarily support the resolution, which implies that "apples" are inclusive of "pinapples", and therefor not on equal footing.Additionally, just because they are taxanomically related at the kingdom level deffinitly does not imply sameness. Humans and flatworms are both in the kingdom animalia, but humans are obviously not flatworms, and flatworms are obviously not humans.2. Physical characteristics 1. stems- having stems also doesn't imply sameness. Stems are also shared by duckweed and, say, cherries. Are cherries duckweed?2. taste is strongly subjective. I would argue that they don't have the same case. Could you prove me wrong?3. Sea Cucumbers (which, for the non-zoologically inclined reader, I will describe as aquatic slugs) are also yellow on the inside. Are they apples?Source: https://animalreview.wordpress.com...3. The bibleThe Bible's a fairy tale full of ruminant ordure and barbirusa-bath, (known as bullsh*t and hogwash to the plebians), and can't be used as evidence for anything.I will now quickly make an argument of my own.1. Pinapples, unlike apples, increases the gustatory pleasure of seminal fluidhttps://porkandgin.com...http://www.yourtango.com...
Pineapples are a kind of apples

Ok lets define the definition from dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com... kind 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: ETC: Our dog is the same kind as theirs. 2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: ETC: These differ in degree rather than in kind. from these 2 definitions both definitions seem to fit the definition Pineapples and Apples both belong to the plantae kingdom and are flowering plants Other physical characteristics in common 1. have stems 2. similar taste 3. yellow on the inside According to the bible, the apple was one of the first fruits mentioned, so everything that comes after it must be a genetic variant of it meaning pineapple evolved from apples from the theory of evolution. Thus pineapples are a kind of apples.
All Illegal immigrants should be deported

ok according to NYtimes illegal immigrants create a substansial amount of revonue for AMERICA"S dieing programs like social security ect... and they never c this money again, also lets look at morality, its imorale to send someone back to their own country of orgin when they left their life. wed be sending them, a deathwish and starvation I am all for not letting more illegal imigrants in but the ones who are should let to stay. i like stricter policy's for entrance but document the illegal immigrants.
All Illegal immigrants should be deported

I believe that all illegal immigrants should be deported, plain and simple. There is no reason to allow them to remain in our country and leech off of our society. I do not want to pay more of my hard earned money to give medicare to a person that does not pay into it. I have no problems with people coming into our country, as long as they do it the right way. I know that our processes for getting a green card or a visa are not perfect and they are not fast, however, they are there for a reason.
9-11 was not a Muslim happy-hour

My opponent has suggested different meanings to the passages I quoted and stated that some of them were taken out of context. But what does it matter? You personally may interpret things this way, but that doesn't mean every Muslim should or indeed every non-Muslim. These passages could be taken as meaning kill people. If Allah condemned this type of behaviour so much, he would not have made his book so ambiguous and subject to pretty much any interpretation. It is a fact that 19 Muslims committed the 9/11 attrocity. I ask my opponent then to offer an explanation as to why they would do this. Also, if Islam did not exist, do you think the twin towers would still be standing. It is also a fact that many Muslims reacted violently when a cartoon depicting Muhammad was published in a Danish newspaper. Is this not a sign of intolerance? Also, are Al Quaeda muslims or not? In Christianity, there are people even U.S. congressmen) who would consider a major terrorist attack, or perhaps a major natural disaster, as a god thing, as it suggests the second coming of Christ (it does not take much thought to realise how conter-productive and dangerous such an attitude can be). Similarly there were Muslims that celebrated the 9/11 attacks. Al Quaeda for a start. My opponent (rather defensively) seems to be suggesting that Islam could never be a cause for evil in the world. I'm afraid history would disagree. Would the world be a better place if people weren't tied to ancient scriptures and dogma? I think so, it'll be interesting t see how my opponent may argue against this.
9-11 was not a Muslim happy-hour

Somewhere in the abyss that is Debate.org, Ste93 made an outlandish claim, stating that 9-11 was a day of celebration for Muslims around the world because they believed the terrorists were going to heaven, and that the Muslims would be following them. I thank Ste93 for accepting this debate, and hope he will live up to the expectations I have of him for this debate. To begin, I'm going to lay down the framework for the debate. ---Content--- o Rules o Definitions o Paper Toss o Sources --------------- o Rules The rules are going to be simple. We are going to have, from the second half of Round 1 on, a civil debate that involves, clearly, the Islamic faith, and their beliefs on what Ste93 believes is apparent martyrdom. I have just three rules. 1) All references to the Qura'an, Hadith, or otherwise must be accurately cited. 2) No arguments from semantics should be made. 3) All the definitions I provide are not debated. o Definitions - Muslim: A believer in or follower of Islam [1] - Islam: The monotheistic religious system of Muslims founded in Arabia in the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as laid down in the Qura'an [2] - Qura'an: The sacred writings of Islam revealed by God to the prophet Muhammad during his life at Mecca and Medina [3] o Paper Toss With that, I'll hand the debate over to Ste93, and look forward to an interesting debate. I got the idea of paper toss from Sports Center's program "Around the Horn", in case anyone was wondering. My opponent can and should provide the opening arguments in Round 1 so we can get started. o Sources [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
Counter-attack using different weapons

I'll think of a weapon. Then, you think of something that can beat that weapon. I'll think of something that can beat your weapon. And so forth. Anything you can think of can be used as a weapon for the purposes of this "debate". However, you cannot choose something that has already been used in the debate. You have to think of a good reason why your weapon beats mine, and vice versa. To start with, I choose a cockroach.
The Christan god doesn't exist, prove me wrong.

OK well how do explain that Martin Luther was saved during a deathly lightening storm? I am pretty sure that is evidence of GOD's will!! He is the embodiment of Christ Almighty and don't tell me different. He survived after GOD had spoken to him. "God is real, trust me," he said. That is directly from the 95 theses posted on the door of a church. Another thing, if God isn't real why does he own so many buildings? Tell me how he is able to act as ultimate landlord for the churches if he is not real? Personally, I too have met GOD and can prove it. He gave me a note describing, "You must fulfill the prophecy young blond one." How did he know I was blond? Explain that to me. You cannot accept that he is real because he has not touched you. One day, my grandma was walking to church when she fell. Unfortunately, she could not get up. Then a car ran her over. This is further evidence of GOD's existence. She could have taken days to die in the street yet was saved by the rubber tires of a Prius. Also, currently, how do you explain Trump? He is the second coming of Jesus. My dad told me. Trump's hair is a golden halo that hath surrounded his gleaming skull for over 70 years. No chance he would have won that election thing without it being God's ultimate plan. You are salty because God has not recognized your pitiful existence. Burn Satan. Side-note: we as a religious peoples find it incredibly disrespectful that you are not capitalizing ALL of GOD's name. I feel personally attacked.
ROGER CLEMMENS HAS NEVER USED PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS AND IF HE DID HE SHOULD STILL BE IN HOF

So what you are telling me is that since everyone cheated when he played and he was just the best at it, we should reward him? I think every player caught cheating to the extent at which he did should be barred from the hall of fame. Just like Shoeless Joe Jackson was. Was caught cheating once and his career was ruined.
ROGER CLEMMENS HAS NEVER USED PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUGS AND IF HE DID HE SHOULD STILL BE IN HOF

u have cleary veered of topic, clemmens should still be in the hall of fame if he used performance enhancing drugs, he was the best player of his time before steroids and his career before the alledged use is good enough to get him into the HOF. He was also the best pitcher in a time full of steroids making him the best pitcher of his time bar none he belongs in the hall of fame. moron
free will school

The reason why kids cant make the decisions for them selves is, that they don't have the change for it. Everybody needs math because for example you cant use money or cook without it and because there is something where people need it they will want to learn it eventually. In a free will system there are no grades like we have now, there is only a personal history of education which is categorized from big categories to small ones just the way we learn things and there are trees of knowledge, where is shoven what you need to learn before you are for example a doctor. People in school cant make any decisions for further education if they haven't got a plan from someone else or from their own minds and schools destroys our creativity, because we are being teached like robots to learn things, that we don't want to learn and we learn stuff that our brain is not ready to process and at the second you have to make your own decisions, you cannot make them cause you cannot remember how it is done and at that point, no one is teaching it for you cause no one knows how to do it. That is because of every single brain that has been teached ever, works very differently and we haven't got a clue just how many ways brains can work. The problem of mass producting different kind of people and brains together is, well think about putting 20 different animals in a same cage... That is the biggest reason for miserable adults. Most of the adults still don't know, what they want to be when they "grow up" because school has killed their creative thinking and now, many of them are just trying to fulfil their needs with a job, where they get enough money to satisfy their needs and addictions. Only a handful of people in the world are doing what they really want and the great they really want.
free will school

I negate the resolution. Value- Justice, Criterion - Education. I negate the resolution on the following points. First, most kids can not make the necessary choices to elect the courses they will need for the future. For example, a 5th grader might think math will not help him for life when it will. Also most kids don't know what they want to do when they are finsihed studying. I am in High school and I am not sure. Secondly, this system successfully is elaborated internationally so that kids learn what is necessary for society. For example kids in Korea have to study their multiplication tables while in the USA do to, maybe at different ages but they still have to learn it. Lastly, although sometimes you might ask yourself why a kid must study World Geography if they want to be a doctor. Yet this teaches kids how to study, work, and prepare which are all skills for life, regardless of profession.