BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro's choice

My opponent makes some very important points. However the fear that the world will be overrun by chickens, cows and pigs is a misnomer as nature has a way of culling overpopulations through starvation, disease and natural predation without human interference. For instance, when a pride of lions becomes too big, it faces starvation due to the lack of food. In a similar fashion, chickens, left to their own devices and unharrased by Colonel Sanders would eventually be brought back to reasonable levels by nature and interstate highways. Domestic animal populations would drop dramatically which would in turn be very good for our ecosystem, a point I was planning to bring up in later rounds but you beat me to it. Note I never claimed that medication was unnatural, the claim was that much of modern medicine is unnatural, meaning surgical techniques like taking veins from legs and placing them in hearts is an unnatural act, yet we do it to prolong life. Native Americans did use 'natural medicine' however I would argue that their track record for curing Malaria is quite a bit lower than that of modern inoculation, an unnatural act. My opponent claims that humans were designed to eat meat, an assumption that explains incisors, but not reason. I contend that man evolved as meat eaters, but is still in the process of evolution and is moving towards a less carnivorous lifestyle. As proof I offer the teeth of ancient monkeys and our common ancestor as compared with modern man. We can clearly see that our incisors have been dramatically reduced, while our molars take up much more oral real estate, proof that mankind is adapting to a vegetarian existence. Finally my opponent compels the reader to go to a body building website that promotes the murder of animals. To be blunt, when my car is broken I take it to a mechanic not a dentist, and attempting to get reasoned advice from a bodybuilder is similar to getting a molar extracted by a small engine repair man. ;-)
Pro's choice

First my opponent attacks nutrition, and protein. Other than meats, there is not a lot of protein in foods such as nuts. Besides, using cause and effect, beCAUSE people will turn to vegetarianism, less people will eat the animals designed to be eaten by humans, thus increasing the amount of cattle, poultry, and pig/hog (whatever you want to call pork), without increasing the amount of room/their food. By doing that, you cause their population to dramatically drop, due to starvation. My opponent says that medication is not natural, when some of it is. The Native Americans used to make medication from plants, with no artificial flavors or benefits, so I can see that medication is sometimes natural. To this day you can find natural medicines for almost anything. . http://naturalmedications.com... This is a lot more natural than going against what we are. As I have stated humans are designed to eat both plants and meats, therefore, it is only natural for us to eat such foods. My opponent's next argument is that vegetarianism is more moral than eating meat. How would it be against our morals to eat what was intended for us to eat? Would it not be more immoral than to let the offspring suffer, and starve, due to the fact there is more of them than there is hunters of them? Why would letting living breathing creatures, their due in at least living a productive life? No it is not like watching cocks fight, or any other animal. If most of us become vegetarians than that would be like watching animals kill each other for fun, my reasoning is the fact that I have brought up twice, that if the population suddenly is not hunted as much, they will make the same number of offspring, and less food, which btw is plants for most of the animals listed, sometimes nuts in the case of poultry. This link is 10 reasons why man is not a vegearian, please read it. It is the rest of my arguement for this round. . http://bodybuilding.com... Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Pro's choice

During the course of this debate three points will become abundantly clear to the reader. 1. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more healthy for humans. 2. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is more humane. 3. Vegetarianism is a superior position because it is better for the ecosystem. It is my hope that the reader and my opponent see the clear advantages to vegetarianism as a more reasonable way of life. In his opening statement my opponent makes the claim that vegetarianism doesn't provide humans with enough nutrition, specifically protein. I submit that this claim is patently false. Most foods contain at least some protein. Sources of protein for vegetarians include nuts and seeds, pulses, soya products (tofu, soya milk and textured soya protein such as soya mince), cereals (wheat, oats, and rice). The lack of protein argument is one made up by flesh eaters and is not at all supported by nutritional studies. In fact in relation to human health, studies have shown that vegetarians often have lower incidence of coronary artery disease, hypertension, obesity and some forms of cancer, and actually tend to have longer life spans. . http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org... . http://www.ajcn.org... . http://www.ajcn.org... Vegetarianism is morally superior to the carnivore lifestyle. My opponent makes the claim that it is 'unnatural'. Many of the things that modern humans choose to do with their lives are 'unnatural', but serve to create a better, more humane experience for those around us. For instance much of modern medicine is not at all natural, yet we participate in it because it is more conducive for living a longer life and more empathetic towards other humans. I submit that as humans we have a moral responsibility to maintain the well being of other species around us. All life should be valued, and the practice of slaughtering animals, when there are valid alternatives is simply barbaric and backwards. It is something you would expect from an undereducated society, two thousand years ago, but in this day and age, we should evolve morally to avoid killing other things for our own pleasure. If there are alternatives to meat, then in essence humans are only killing for pleasure, which is similar to watching cock fights, bull fights, dog fights or inflicting pain on animals for entertainment. We all agree that inflicting death and pain on animals for pleasure is morally reprehensible, (I hope), so it is time that we acknowledge what the carnivore lifestyle is TRULY promoting. I will save my third point for round 3. .. . http://search.playlist.com...
Pro's choice

Vegatarianism The deffinition: http://en.wikipedia.org... Strict Vegetarianism does not give one all of the nutritional things that humans need to survive. Even with the vegie-burgers and tofu, among other things do not give enough substancial protein to live on. It is also unnatural unnatural, meaning something that does not happen naturally, naturally meaning, found in nature. Yes some animals are herbavores, but humans are omnivores meaning, they are not herbavores, nor carnavores, but they need plant and animal food to survive. Our bodies need both meat and vegtables in order to function properly. Example: Bears are omnivores as well. how often have you seen a bear in noture, not eat fish? Yes it eats berries, as well, as an omnivore should. However, the bear cannot live a very healthy life. Thus humans cannot live a life soley on fruits and vegtables. We as the race of humanity need to live as naturally as we can, thus Vegetarianism is an abomination of our sociaty. I have more arguements but save them for the round 2 of this debate (or round 3 if you prefer)
Pro's choice

Great idea righty.... I took a gander at your positions as listed on your profile and am choosing topics that we disagree on, so we can both argue from an opposing viewpoint. That way, we may offer each other a viewpoint that will actually help our argumentts in the future.....Cool? Here are the topics that we disagree on: 1. Abortion, I would be con, you pro. 2. Labor Unions, you con, me pro. 3. Patriotism, you con, me pro 4. Vegatarianism, you con, me pro. Choice is up to you now, this should be fun.....
drake is better then jay z

"well i didnt forfeited the round i just didnt check it"By not checking it and letting your time expire, the opponent forfeited the round. "im not sayin lil wayne is better im just sayin i can understand him..."What does Lil Wayne have to do with this debate? "you dont know nothing about drake u prolly dont know his new cd"The opponent made baseless assumptions here. "jay z always talkin about him being god there is only one god"Wait, this sentence is ambiguous. Jay-Z calls himself God or Drake God? The opponent needs to clarify."And he worships the devil like wow who does that, wonder why do you worship the devil? Is that ur reason why you like him?"No he doesn't. Those are just rumors. [1] And no, I actually worship my pet goldfish Oswald (though I'm not sure how my opponent's question is germane to the matter at hand.) "well drake is very real he does not worship the devil what so ever..."I can't be sure that Drake is real, since I haven't seen him in person, but he probably is. And there is, indeed, so evidence that he worships the devil. Does that really make him better, though? Is devil worship necessarily an objectively bad thing?"so voters vote for me please..."Uhhhh. [1] http://hiphopwired.com...
drake is better then jay z

well i didnt forfeited the round i just didnt check it.....for one i didnt mean to go for con i meant to go for pro and everything i said about drake is the best im not sayin lil wayne is better im just sayin i can understand him and you dont know nothing about drake u prolly dont know his new cd and jay z always talkin about him being god there is only one god.And he worships the devil like wow who does that, wonder why do you worship the devil?Is that ur reason why you like him?well drake is very real he does not worship the devil what so ever...so voters vote for me please i didnt mean to miss that round:):):):)
drake is better then jay z

Con's Arguments:I. Drake makes user mis.lilmama agree with everything he says. (And therefore, Drake is better.)Response: If user mis.lilmama agrees with someone, then it does not make him/her better than someone else. II. User mis.lilmama understands Drake better than she does Jay-Z. (And therefore, Drake is better.)Response: If user mis.lilmama understands someone better than someone else, it does not make one better than the other. III. mis.lilmama also understands Lil Wayne better than she does Jay-Z. (And therefore, Drake is better.)Response: The validity of this statement is irrelevant to the debate. IV. Jay-Z is "so negative" in his songs. Response: "Negative" is completely subjective. And negative lyrics don't necessarily make Jay-Z worse than Drake. Moreover, the opponent does not state whether Drake's lyrics are positive or negative relative to those of Jay-Z. ---Thank you.
The New Testament has Jewish roots

Call your Jesus and l call my Jesus so we could have a showdown! Its is useless to say the bible was written by Jews without identifying who the real Jews are! And it is useless to pray without identifying the real God you are praying to.The Bible clearly states that we will be deceived in the last days if you know what l mean.So as we have been deceived right now into praying to the wrong God!When we pray,,, our frequencies have been changed to channel our frequencies to darker forces of satan,hence you get bad results! What am I saying here?(For example)A telephone number! l give you John's phone number and you have faith indeed that it is John phone number !You call John asking for a job, he tells you jobs are unavailable.Why? Because l deceived you into believing that it is Johns number who hires people!When in fact its not the actual John you have been calling .The John you 've been calling is phony.He's Fake! You need to take care my dear friends when praying! Who's number are you dialing?Are you dialing Jesus's correct number or you dialing a number you thought or have been told is Christ's phone number! l am getting closer to my point here!First lets find out who you have been praying too,is it the real Jesus Christ or you are one of those praying to the Jesus which even the atheists know he doesn't exist!(food for thought),.What is a Jew...A Jew is a decedent of Abraham and Jacob and is a Hebrew right!And where are they decedent from?l know most would say middle east or nation of Arabs. That is where you all get it wrong .Abraham Jacob David and Jesus are all Africans! The true children of Israel!Gods chosen people Why do l say this because its in the bible!Which Jesus are you channeling your prayers to?ls it the white Jesus set up by western nations or the real black Jesus written in the bible who's real face has been hidden by the minorities to promote a white Jesus for white supremacy!
Capitalism is an overall better government system than Socialism

Definitions of each:Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of themeans of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made andmaintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially ascontrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. [1]Socialism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of themeans of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made andmaintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially ascontrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. [2]This is just to give the audience an idea of what each means, and how it is set up. (If they don't already know. )3 reasons why capitalism is more superior to socialism1. Capitalism works in concert with human nature while socialism works against it. Capitalism works hand in hand with human nature and asks people to serve themselves as they serve others, it creates a much more productive society that gets the maximum out of its citizenry. On the other hand, socialism runs on the contrary to human nature. As a general rule, people will work hard for themselves and their families, but it's considered an imposition so large that only god can ask them to pay other people’s bills without resentment. [3]2. Capitalism is bascially freedom, and socialism is basically slavery. Usually, socialists use envy to trick people into becoming angry at successful people instead they are the one's taking away their freedoms. For socialists to gain authority over your life, your own power has to shrink. The more the socialists take, the less of their own money the people get to spend. Capitalism reacts to the citizenry, while socialism tries to control and enslave the citizens. Capitalism will give you what you want for the right price, while socialism will give you what it thinks is best for you and tell you that you better like it. [4]3. Capitalism produces faster growth than socialism. Why do you think most poor people in this country have refrigerators, microwaves, and televisions that we think of as basic necessities even though those items are considered to be luxuries in much of the world? In our country, (the USA) we live to eat, while other countries eat to live. Even nations like China have figured this out and have seen their economies lift off by moving towards capitalism. If China keeps at it long enough, eventually the hundreds of millions of Chinese who're still living in huts and shacks will be able to have the sort of lives and technology even the American poor take for granted. I have made my arguments, and I expect Con to rebut and post his own arguments, thank you. Cites: [1]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[2]- . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...
cigarette equals

I am going off the reasonable assumption that you have chosen to debate whether or not cigarettes are addictive, since "cigarette equals" cannot be debated. It is not even a full sentence. I also make that assumption because in the comments, you states cigarettes are addictive. Since that is the only statement you have conveyed that makes relative sense, it's safe to assume you meant for the topic to say "cigarette equals addictive". To briefly restate my argument, saying "cigarettes are addictive" is inaccurate. The nicotine is the addictive ingredient in the big name cigarettes, but not all cigarettes contain nicotine. Therefore; If not all cigarettes have addictive qualities, making the statement that "cigarettes are addictive" is just simply not true. That would be like me saying "only fish live in the water". I'm not going to sit here and explain how a dolphin is not a fish. But you get what I'm saying. Making a simple and generalizing statement, creates a lot of rumor for error.
cigarette equals

Thank you for the opportunity to debate. Good luck. I would first like to point out that the title "cigarette equals" does not make much of any sense. In the comments you basically said you wanted the debate to be whether cigarettes are addictive or not. The problem with saying that cigarettes are addictive, is that its only partially true. The cigarette itself is not addictive, it is the nicotine. Nicotine is found in all tobacco products. However, dip and chew actually contain more nicotine than cigarettes. Holding an average sized pinch of dip in your mouth for half an hour, contains the same amount of nicotine as three cigarettes. The reason nicotine is so addictive is because of an "up and down" cycle it causes in your body. Once nicotine is in your body, it only takes about 10 seconds for it to reach your brain. Once reaching your brain, it causes your body to release adrenaline which creates a buzz. Once the buzz fades, you feel tired. This tired feeling leaves you with the feeling of needing another buzz. Now that we have established that the nicotine is what is addictive, I will get into what is wrong with saying "cigarettes are addictive'". I'm sure we are all aware that there are different brands of cigarettes. The top biggest brands being Marlboro, Newport, and Camel. But there are in fact cigarettes that are nicotine free. Smoke Free is a brand of completely nicotine free cigarettes. So without the addictive side effect of nicotine found in these cigarettes, it makes the statement "cigarettes are addictive" invalid since not ALL brands contain the addictive ingredient. Now if you had said "cigarettes with nicotine are addictive", that would be a completely different story and you would have been correct. http://nicotinefreecigarettes.com... https://www.sharecare.com...
It is Logically Impossible that a Maximally Great Being Exists.

It is logically impossible that a maximally great being exists. Just a few definitions:Maximally great being (MGB)- A being greater than all other conceivable beings. A MGB is attributed omnipotence, omniscience, perfect moral goodness, and being the necessary creator of the Universe. Note, however, that this being must be subject to the laws of logic for the purposes of this discussion. The MGB we are discussing could not, for instance, create a square triangle or a married bachelor. Logically Impossible- A proposition that leads to contradiction or incoherence. Exists- To have actual being; to exist in the actual world. Rules and Such Things Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, however Con must successfully refute Pro’s arguments to win the debate. Insufficient argumentation from Pro without Con pointing out any flaws does not grant Con a win. The first round is for acceptance. Clarifications regarding the resolution, definitions, or any other preliminary matters should be brought up in the comments before accepting the debate. No abusive and/or semantically abusive arguments. Drops shall count as concessions.
It is Logically Impossible that a Maximally Great Being Exists.

I will not be debating on the validity of the argument, because all one needs to do is show that at least one of the premises are false, to tear down this argument. Just to make things interesting, I will attack 2 of the premises. Premise 5 "If there is always another number greater than this number, I could then always conceive of a being that could create a greater number of stars than this great being. "This is false, because even though you could concieve of a being who could create more, that doesn't mean it's a different being than the one who created less like P5 implies. Thus, P5 fails. Why is this the case? Well, lets say that God created 400,000 stars, you could concieve of a being who create 400,001 stars, but there is no reason to assume it's a different being than the one who created 400,000. Just because God only created 400,000 stars, that doesn't mean he couldn't have created more if he wanted to. Thus, if you concieve of a being who can create more stars than 400,000, then it means you could be concieving of the same being, but a different scenario involving more stars. This actually is necessary, given the definition of a maximally great being. Premise 7 "If I can always conceive of a being greater than the great being, then no being is the greatest. " This is false, because if you can concieve of a greater being, than the greatest possible being, then that just means that what you thought previously was the greatest possible being, wasn't, and that this new being you are concieving of, is. For instance, if you conceive of a being who can only create 400,000 stars, and then concieve of a being who can only create 400,00i stars, that doesn't mean that no being is the greatest. It means, that the being who can create the most number of finite stars is the greatest. If there can always be one more, then that just means, that one more would be the greatest, not none of them. Thus, P7 is false. Conclusion Since P5 and P7 are false, the argument fails. The resolution has been negated.
In the United States, the benefits of government regulation outweigh the harms.

The federal government is giving us money to teach children. If the government is giving us money, we should use it to help teach. We have flexibility teaching, as we just have to teach what they tell us to, and we can teach it anyway we want, whenever we want (throughout the year). Also, if you finish with your educational requirements early, then you can teach whatever you want for the rest of the year.
"Conservative politicians", as in Respublicans, are not conservative.

conservative - A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage) I'll break down the definition of conservative (since my opponent forfeited) and show how Republicans adhere to each part.Tradition - anti-gay marriage, emphasis on the nuclear family.Established institutions - the Constitution, the Church, marriageGradual development - supply side economics (stressing long term change in supply and not quick change in demand)Lower taxes - GOP is calling for an end to tax hikes and implemented tax cuts (under Bush)Limited government - anti-Obamacare, lower taxes, emphasis on the state above the federal government (Arizona immigration laws)Limited regulation - anti-EPA, anti-Union, pushing for freer energy policy, looser environmental policy, pro-low capital gains taxStrong national defense - pro-War on Terror, pro-military (spending where Obama had cuts), military technology (NASA)Individual financial responsibility - anti-long term welfare, anti-entitlement spending, pro-sustainability These things are pretty universal from Republican to Republican and come straight from the definition of Conservative.