BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vegans harm the environment

Vegan- not eating, using animal products as well as not eating meats Arguments If everyone become vegan all of a sudden, then 10 billion chickens will freely roam over the planet and eat all the plants up, and the slaughtered meat shall be wasted. Furthermore, even if it is gradual, it will severely impact the farmer's economy as will as cause a food shortage, for there will be an increased strain on plant sources. Energy pyramid A google docs can be created by anyone and doesn't seem much of a reliable source. Furthermore, this doesn't explain how certain meats have more calories/energy than plants. Chicken industry The sources 2, 3 and 4 are severely outdated and are from the last century. Poultry standards must have improved marginally by now. Furthermore, cow manure has been used as a fertilizer, although chicken manure harms the soil. Con must recognize that chicken is not the only meat that is eaten by non-vegetarians, although it is one of the most prominent ones. We must realize that if the chickens and cattle are allowed to live on for long, they can do all that damage that con mentioned, yet if they are killed and eaten they would do lesser damage. They are not animals that can survive the wild either. In the wild, they would eat up all the plants and gradually fall prey to the predators. Economic impact Shutting down the meat industry would severely impact the farmers and fishermen, as well as increase the price and strain on plant products. There may even be a famine in areas such as deserts and lands where farming is extremely difficult. Low economy and food shortage would result in the government not having enough for environmental protection, and then the forests would have to be cleared for agricultural land, which harms the environment. Plants Agriculture causes a lot of pollution as well. Pesticides and fertilizers can contaminate water, and that water wouldn't be healthy for the plant. Soil erosion happens due to clearing of the forests and plants that don't have strong roots to hold the soil together. Agricultural pollution can cause health-related issues to humans as well as nearby wild animals. http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... Taste Well, this impacts humans, doesn't it? What would we do without milk, cheese and butter? Or egg cakes? I can't let go of all animal products. This harms the environment as technically humans are included in the environment. Shutting down meat due to vegan movement would severely impact human diet and happiness.
Being a muslim is a lifestyle of fear

You need to prove that, again, disbelievers come in two categories. Combatant Non-combatant Final argument: There is a hadeeth that speaks of that. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "If anyone wrongs a mu"aahid, detracts from his rights, burdens him with more work than he is able to do or takes something from him without his consent, I will plead for him (the mu"aahid) on the Day of Resurrection." Narrated by Abu Dawood, 3052; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood. If any of the non-Muslims comes to our country for work or business, and has permission (from the authorities), he is either a mu"aahid (one who has a treaty with the Muslims) or a musta"min (one who has been granted security by the Muslims). So it is not permissible to transgress against him. It is proven that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever kills a mu"aahid will not smell the fragrance of Paradise." We are Muslims who submit to the command of Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and we respect those whom Islam instructs us to respect of those who have treaties and guarantees of security. Whoever transgresses against them has misrepresented Islam and has given Islam an image of terrorism, treachery and betrayal. The one who adheres to the rulings of Islam and respects treaties and covenants is one for whom it is hoped that he will do well and succeed. [1] https://islamqa.info... [2] https://www.ummah.com...
coaching culture is good or bad

I accept the topic. I assume my opponent means the culture of professional coaching in every field that's permeating the student and professional life, but my opponent is free to correct me in the next round if I'm wrong.My opponent lays down one main points, that coaching improves performance, and by extention efficiency and knowledge.However, recent research shows that that is not exactly true. A UK survey (Blessing White, Coaching Conundrum, 2006) suggested that coaching in organizations was most definitely not working as well as it could or should. The survey found that fewer than one in four (23%) thought coaching had significantly affected their job performance, and only 20% felt it had significantly contributed to their job satisfaction. More than half of the respondents said coaching had slight, little or no impact on their job performance (60%) and satisfaction (54%). Ten percent even said coaching had made them less satisfied with their jobs. Further discussions on the topic found that the fault was not coaching, but the permeance of coaching culture. Coaching is a good way to achieve a particular objective, a means to a end and not the end itself. The danger of developing a coaching culture is risking the means to an end, and thus unravelling the entire utility of the exercize. As has been seen, developing a coaching culture doesn't guarantee success, a good coaching does. And development of a culture where coaching becomes a to-do list for managers doesn't lead to good coaching.In student life, this coaching culture just leads to excessive dependence and consequently low self esteem. Lastly, there is always the danger of misguided coaching, especially in a coaching culture where the demand for coaching outstrips its need.Coaching culture, thus, is definitely not desirable. The resolution is negated.
Teachers should be armed with guns.

Teachers should not be able to carry weapons because one teacher could dislike another teacher or a student and kill them. We trust our teachers enough, but we should not trust anyone with kids that have a gun (other than law workers) no matter if is a teacher who we trust protecting kids while we are at school. Me for one would absolutely hate some teachers having a gun. Not like you know her but Ms. Sheldon is an absolutely horrible teacher that knows nothing about grammar (she said you can't start a sentence with to! What about "To be or Not to be?") anyway she hates almost everyone and she got fired but is working at the school until the end of the year, (coming soon) so she could go and shoot the principle or anybody who fired her. No teacher should have a gun unless it is a home-owner/renter or a law worker.
Flag burning.

"The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag."- Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist [1]We can see here that the Supreme Court's Dissenting Opinion has shown and in state that the Court has no right to overrule the laws of what is legal in the majority of the states. Now this Court Case was invalid and in an earlier ruling we can see that in the Supreme Court Case LA V Taxpayers for Vincent and in the case they found that, "the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to employ every conceivable method of communication at all times and in all places." Meaning that the Flag burning and desecration is NOT Constitutional as the First Amendment DOES NOT cover this type of free speech. Not only that, but the case threatens Federalism as the states will gradually work for legalization. This will create less and less resentment over time. For exampe we can see that the Gay Marriage issue vs. the Abortion issue that both were hot topics. The thing is that Abortion was legalized all at one time vs. Gay Marriage's gradual legalization. We can see that the change in the legalization is something that created a huge problem as many people don't find problems with gay marriage, but Abortion to them is dangerous and that's on the grounds of destruction of State's Rights. As I shown earlier in the round that we need to leave this legislative authority to the states. For the Supreme Court was right to strike down the Federal law, but it had NO right to strike down state law. We must realize that the State's Supreme Courts are independent from the Federal Supreme Court and that the State Supreme Court must affect State Law and only state law as the Federal Courts can only affect Federal Goverment. [2]Sources1. ( https://www.law.cornell.edu...)2. G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking, 6th ed. (Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2012), 37 and 139.
Flag burning.

Round 1: Pro opening argument Con rebuttal Round 2: Con counter argument Pro rebuttal Round 3: Pro closing argument Con closing argument In the rebuttal phase please restrain your argument to refuting my points I will do the same. To burn the American flag is to desecrate a symbol of freedom and American pride which hundreds of thousands have lost their lives for. However the freedom which the flag symbolizes, while derived from self-evident, natural rights is legally enshrined in the constitution and the bill of rights. Of specific relevance to this argument is the first amendment's freedom of speech/expression which allows any and all non-violent speech. To burn the flag may be a desecration but to criminalize this non-violent expression is a repudiation of all it stands for. http://www.militaryfactory.com...
Donald Trump

To address your statement on how Trump should not be president. Trump should be the president because he was elected through our process. He may not have been elected with the popular vote but he did win through the voting system set in place by the U.S. Then to address on Trump being a bad person you should provide some evidence on him being a bad person. Now you may not agree with his political positions but that does not mean he is a bad person. So please give some details on him being bad. Trump so far has done good things as president mainly for the economy which has helped the people get out of poverty and get jobs.
Should Gay couples get the marital tax break

for this argument I'm going to assume your source is correct and credible even though it just sends you to a search"only around 45 percent of American married couples have children [1]. The majority do not, but still get the tax deduction. How can you explain this?" I can find articles that are contradictory to yours like this report that states that 43 percent of Gen-X women and 32 percent of Gen-X men did not have kids[4].by this logic there is a majority and even if it is 45% we cant repeal it and the put it back in place the moment it goes up to 50%. there needs to be slight tolerances on this number but that again, is only if your source is correct "Paraphrasing you, you are saying that homosexual couple should get a tax break ONLY for every child they adopt. Why not apply a same type of rule for straight couples? For every child they get, they also get a tax break."they do"What I'm trying to say, in other words, is that the system is unfair and discriminating. Not nearly every married couple have children, so why should they get a tax break, if it, according to you, exists to encourage couples to have kids?"the current system does have loopholes and I will admit that but for the most part it accomplishes its task."couples do, without any doubt, benefit of it in other ways too. So, why can't we also let homosexual couples enjoy the same benefits?"this debate is purely about the tax break for marriage. I believe that homosexual couples should get as many benefits as possible but with the marital tax break it is a trade off where the government should get something in returnon your last argument, we are in a critical state where a fragile economy is just recovering and you want to risk dealing another blow? we cannot afford another recession because it could mean a complete economic collapse and send the world economy into chaos.[4] http://www.dinklife.com...
Should Gay couples get the marital tax break

Yes, the marital tax break exists to encourage couples to have kids. I am aware of this, and also of the fact that two people of the same gender are not able to reproduce. So technically your point is valid. However, only around 45 percent of American married couples have children [1]. The majority do not, but still get the tax deduction. How can you explain this? Paraphrasing you, you are saying that homosexual couple should get a tax break ONLY for every child they adopt. Why not apply a same type of rule for straight couples? For every child they get, they also get a tax break. What I'm trying to say, in other words, is that the system is unfair and discriminating. Not nearly every married couple have children, so why should they get a tax break, if it, according to you, exists to encourage couples to have kids? Even though having encouraging having children is one major point in the whole tax deduction idea, married couples do, without any doubt, benefit of it in other ways too. So, why can't we also let homosexual couples enjoy the same benefits? While as I do agree with your last argument to some extent, I think human rights are more important than the economy. Therefore I still think homosexual couples should get the marital break as a next step towards total equality. Alternatively, a model where the break is ONLY given to couples - gay or not - with children would work.
Should Gay couples get the marital tax break

i think i should clear something up before i start my argument. i believe it is okay for gay couples to be together and i have no moral issue but they shouldnt get the martial tax break. they should however, get a tax break for every kid they adopt.1.The Marital tax break exists to encourage couples to have kids the marital tax break exists to encourage married, heterosexual couples to have kids. This is because a country needs population growth to grow its economy. its comparabele to an investment where you give money back to the couple and later you get 2 or 3 people entering the economy worth at least $15,000.2.Giving LGBT couples the marital tax break isnt practicalas i stated earlier the marriage tax break serves to encourage couples to have children but LGBT couples rarely raise children with a percentage of 10-19%[1]. when you approach this situation you need to use a utilitarian mindset when making ther decision of investment. the LGBT community simply does not raise enough kids for it to be practical at this point in time3.Giving LGBT couples the tax break hurts the economya countries debt effects the way its economy grows in the short term [2]. when a country has around 90% GDP the economy plummets with a 1-year growth of -5% and a 5 year growth of just over 1%[2]. the united states currently has a debt of 106% of its own GDP[3] making more spending an option that cannot be undertaken. by spending millions or possibly a couple billion on LGBT marriage tax breaks you would be increasing the defecit and hurting the economy[1] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...[2] http://www.thefiscaltimes.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should Gay couples get the marital tax break

In modern times, human rights are considered to be a major part of a working society. I believe that the LGBT community, where gay couples are a subgroup, should be given equal rights when compared to the non-LGBT community. So also with marital tax breaks. Not giving homosexual couples the right to a marital tax break is just another form of discrimination. Looking back at history, we can see that the society has always discriminated homosexuals to some extent. In the Middle Ages, for instance, an openly homosexual could easily be burned on a stake. This, of course, isn't the case in the civilized societies anymore (excluding certain countries where homosexuality is punished by death). This kept going on and on and on. Systematic destruction. Then came the problems with gay marriage. Of course homosexual people shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? "It's against God's will. It destroys the sanctity of marriage." But is it so, really? In the United States, where most of the population is religiously affiliated, seventeen states allow gay marriage. Seventeen states are not afraid of God's punishment. And now we are trying to deny homosexual couples the right of a marital tax break. We have made huge progress. From hosting public executions for homosexuals to allowing them to marry, albeit in only seventeen states. Why is it immoral or wrong to continue the path of equalization? Why is it wrong to accept the homosexual community by giving them the same rights as straight people? Why can't we continue creating a loving and caring community, when our start was so good?
Inequality is not wrong. Equality is.

"All men ... are NOT created equal! Some are born swifter afoot, some with greater beauty, some are born into poverty and others born sick and feeble. Both in birth and upbringing, in sheer scope of ability every human is inherently different; Yes that is why people discriminate against one another, which is why there is struggle, competition and the unfaltering march of progress. Inequality is not wrong, equality is. We fight, we compete, evolution is continuous.
Inequality is not wrong. Equality is.

Equality is essential for our world = By equality, we generally mean that all men are equal and all should be entitled to identity of treatment and income. "Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights". Equality is vital because it is the foundation of any fair society where everyone can thrive in spite of their differences. Indeed, an individual should restrain himself from adopting an essentialist perspective on issues relating to equality as it has numerous negative consequences. Instead, he should embrace the individuality of each person and honor them. Equality gives us value as a human being, whilst inequality does not. Equality is a method of simplification that allows us to reduce complexity to simplicity and make sense. Therefore, Equality is moral.
Genocide is usually moral.

"My opponent has the ENTIRE BoP to prove that genocide is usually moral, in practice"sure man take the easy way in this debate. Genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."Why is it good? In practice it would take another large group to kill the group/Group 1: Full of 10,000 pieces of sh1tGroup 2: Full off 100,000 aswomeos. Group 2 is the majoirty, anyone who negates group 2 is automatically in group one. G2 is the majority and it would give them extreme pleasre to kill them all. If utilitarianism is true genocide is usally moral.But Jedi4 you say what about that bucket face philosophy named KANT."Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."Genocide is a universal claim to murder a large group of ppl. We run into no contadiction if we universalize it bros. By Kant Genocide is moral. Argue 2If a large group of people have the means and ability to genocide the peoples then they must have some reason for it. The Jews for example where keeping Germany down. Stalin did it for the same reason. It cannot be totally immoralArgue 3Killing off large groups of people is the only way to keep our Carbon footprint and overpopulation down. No matter what reason genocide can help the earth and make life better for the others.*Drops mic*Your turn
Genocide is usually moral.

I accept. My opponent has the ENTIRE BoP to prove that genocide is usually moral, in practice.Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nationusually: more than 50% of casesmoral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. I have no obligation to provide any sort of constructive case, as the BoP lies with pro. If I choose to provide constructive arguments, due to the nature of the way that the BoP is set up, they cannot be held against me. However, any constructive arguments that I make can be held against my opponent.Good luck
Battle Of the Racists: I'm more racist than you..

Since that previous argument by my opponent was nonsensical, I will wait for him to return with something coherent and accurate. No mof'ing people lick babies butts, or burp in ears, To maintain the entertainment, I will say something randomly absurd about Russian parents just to nullify this pointless round. Do make the next one better mate, " Russian parents so f'd up they shoot their children for not being drunk enough.
Battle Of the Racists: I'm more racist than you..

Are you aware that nazism has Indian roots. Do you not know Hitler admired Hinduism. Are you also aware that black supremacy is a legitimate organisation, you don't wanna fuk with them. Racism and ignorance have high correlation mate. You can tell im being racist due entertainment purposes, whereas you really ppl. So yeh... U think its ok to be racist amongst the ethnic majority, but i bet u wouldn't last 2 seconds In a brixton or brooklyn. Anyways back to the Racist mockery: Why u no like Indians, they really really smart, smarter than your incest making aunts, and they don't come as mail order brides! India has dowry system instead, that's how corruption accumulates #Knowledge. Fact 2, you gonna love this one, Romani gypsies originated From India!, while escaping from those pesky cousin shaggng Muslims. They are the stinky ones bro, not us, Indians be mad creative in food, clothing, gods, and everything. Very entrepreneurial beings, what do the Russians have apart from sputnik and vodka? India also licks UKs butt, so we sorted. Us-italian mafia kicks Russian mafia butt. Hey even triad doing bits with their dog eating habits. Ukraine called, the say they want more cheap hookers from Russia as apart of the invasion deal. What's the difference between a rusky and a redneck baby, 2 fingers!.... only cos the goddamn Russian lost at Russian roulette in an underground casino run by putin himself.
Battle Of the Racists: I'm more racist than you..

All Indian people eat is feces-flavored curry. They burn incense to their million armed god. That is why I hate Indians. Indians aside, let's now move on to talking about black people. Black people are not at all people, you see. They have abnormally low IQ's, they are very ugly, and with Egypt aside (which technically isn't part of Africa, but rather the Middle East), Africans accomplished nothing throughout human history. That just manifests their unthinkably low intelligence and competence. Speaking of competence, there are two things black people are good at: basketball and rapping. How many non-black rappers can you name? I'm guessing less than 5 to 10. Now name some black rappers. I'm guessing you've got more than 100. And as for basketball, there aren't too many white or Asian basketball players. Most all black. Also, do you think we need a strict limit of one black family per neighborhood. I think yes.