BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Consuming Animals

Stating that "the way of life includes killing and eating" isn"t a moral justification to needlessly kill animals and is an appeal to nature fallacy. We do not need meat to survive, which is why the the two largest health organisations; British and American dietetics accosiation have stated that a vegan diet is healthy for ALL stages of life, including lactation and infancy. To make a claim like that you must provide evidence. In fact the largest study ever done on the correlation between nutrition and disease, "The China Study" discovered that the optimal amount of animal products in the diet was zero. Eating meat has been proven to increase risk of many major disease that inflict humans, due to the large amounts of trans fats, cholesterol, heme iron and saturated fat found in animal products. The World Health Orginization classes red meat as a type 2 carcinogen. And a vegan diet has been the only diet proven to reverse some of these disease, vegans have the lowest risk of cancer and heart disease. The adventis study studied a population that ate a predominant whole foods, plant based diet and they were the longest living population to date and found that this population also had the lowest risk of cancer, heart disease and coronary artery diseases. https://nutritionstudies.org... http://www.who.int... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... "If we do not kill common animals, their numbers will spiral out of control" well how I don"t see this point relevant to the debate, we forcibly breed these animals into existence, there is zero way that cows, chicken, pigs and sheep would be at the numbers they are now naturally. As the demand for their bodies and biproducts decreases, so will the amount raised into existence. "Cows fart....tonnes of methane...killing cows might be good". Well, if you are worried about the atmosphere and carbon and methane emissions, animal agriculture is the leading cause. Animal agriculture is responsible for the largest majority of deforestation. And the amount of emissions cause by animal agriculture is more than transportation. http://www.onegreenplanet.org... http://www-naweb.iaea.org... "We can only get so far without eating meat" not true, provide evidence. "Meat has always been a part of our diet" this is irrelevant, and an appeal to history, just because something has been happening for a long time doesn"t make it ethical. We don"t need to eat meat or animal products to survive, in fact we thrive without them. The animal holocaust is needless.
Consuming Animals

The way of Life includes killing and eating. We need meat to survive. If we do not kill common animals, their number will spiral out of control. For example, if we take away cats who kill mice, there will be more mice than ever before without a cat to control their number. However, we should not kill and eat endangered animals, such as sharks. And it may be for a good cause too. Cows burp and fart a billion litres of methane per day, and that is very harmful to our atmosphere. So killing cows might be good. Now, we can only go so far without eating meat without feeling the side effects. Meat was always part of our diet.
Aerogant is arrogant

I can tell you exactly what you want to know. Most arguments were lost because apparently I have very bad "conduct" on a site infested with idiots compared to say, military conduct, catholic conduct - do I really have to say more? Other arguments I lost because the people I debated with were friends with the people that are biased towards me. Other arguments I lost because, well, I didn't take it seriously because the person was being a complete idiot. Other arguments I lost because, well, I was arguing with myself (ALovingFlowerGirl). Then I tied some, because why not. Then I won every single debate due to two reason: 1) The person I debated with FF'd. 2) The person I debated with were so bad at debating that I somehow managed to win. But in the end, all the ones I won aren't even legit - I lost all my legit wins because they are, indeed, 100% biased. Don't believe me? I don't care. In a few years from now, I'll be out in the real world becoming your next world renowned philosopher. Who cares what you muster from what I've written. There are people out there with far more "arrogance" that disown their own children for their pride, while all I do is call someone an... "idiot". Five letter. A very simple word for stupidity, and you're calling me arrogant because people are, indeed, idiots? The wise men said it, nobody cares. When I say it, it's suddenly a witch hunt? Okay people, there's a reason why humanity has a bad reputation on this planet; there's a reason why people give up their lives to sex, drugs and other dwelling issues; there's a reason why so many people run away from reality by reading books, playing games or some other outlet; there's a reason why our rulers destroy our country, while nobody in the population is taking the blame, after they voted the monkey into office. So I rest my case. You are idiots. I'm going to lose this one because I call people idiots based on a well established reason, but because you guys are idiots, you can't reason, so despite of me making serious points, the children of this site will see the word idiot and be like "What a big fat meany head!" then vote for you in a world of much bigger issues... but you know, idiots.
Aerogant is arrogant

You claimed that to hide their alleged bias towards you, voters voted for you when your opponent forfeited. This is perhaps my opponent's only sensible argument in that Round. There has been no proof presented by Aerogant to back up this claim, and even if they were all biased towards you your debate arguments make it clear that you are not a "genius" (just being truthful). Only all this time you've been trolling and your true genius has not been shown, but of course such a claim would require evidence. Until then it is an invalid argument. Of course, just saying that my opponent's arguments disprove his alleged genius does not make it so. Here is a debate that my opponent engaged in recently: . http://www.debate.org... And here was his opening statement: "I masturbated while I was a guy. *sex change* I masturbated. .. Wait. " I think that all the spectators can agree such an argument is NOT the mark of a genius. Not by a long shot. And yes, if "wise" people believe that other people are inferior then those "wise" people are arrogant (and probably not all that wise). Besides, the arrogance of other people does not negate one's own arrogance. I might be more arrogant and vain than Light Yagami (an anime reference) and I might consider myself "god of the new world". Now, my opponent probably isn't quite THAT arrogant. But even so, my own misguided megalomania would mean nothing whenever the resolution of this debate is "Aerogant is arrogant. "
Aerogant is arrogant

They did not vote against me during the FF because they knew their bias would have nowhere to hide, numb skull. You beat your dictionary to come up with this logical fallacy? Wise men called people stupid, therefore wise men are arrogant? No? THEN STFU AND STOP TWISTING CONTEXT, YOU PSYCHOPATHIC BABY. The only thing left of your rebuttal is butt, BUTT, BUT, ARSE, BEHIND, REGRESSION, HOLE.
Aerogant is arrogant

1st Piece of Evidence: During one debate Arrogant said "I'm a genius." http://www.debate.org... Definition of genius: someone who is much more intelligent than the average person. Definition of arrogant: "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority towards others". http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Being more intelligent is generally considered a thing that makes one superior. Therefore, if Aerogant believes that he is more intelligent than others then he is arrogant. Now, setting aside for a moment the fact that this claim even if true is still arrogant, let's contest the claim that Aerogant is exceptionally intelligent, a "genius". Aerogant has, at the time that I'm posting this, won less than 10% of all the debates that he has taken part in (with this account, at least). http://www.debate.org... This is not due to a lack of voters, as according to this source Aerogant has lost 83 out of 95 debates. He may claim that there is a bias against him, but I find this unlikely, as the voters have voted for him when he deserved victory (such as when his opponents forfeited) and have not voted at all on some debates that he deserved to lose. 2nd Piece of Evidence: In this debate Aerogant and one of Debate.org member make more original debates than the other Debate.org members. http://www.debate.org... As originality is generally considered a good thing, Aerogant was stating (and this debate is still going on, so it is present tense), that there was a way in which he is superior to almost all other members. By the definition of arrogant provided earlier on in this debate, Aerogant has proven himself to be arrogant. Rebuttals: For his argument Aeorgant has presented people who he believes to be arrogant. He says that "Religious people are" (arrogant). As the Christian Religion says that people must abandon their pride and their own plans for life in order to please God and there are Christians who have followed this criteria, there are Christians (who are religious people) who are not arrogant, thus disproving my opponent's claim, which presumably meant that all religious people are arrogant. And even if all the people mentioned by Con in Round 1 of this debate were selfish, that still would not mean that Aerogant isn't selfish. I await my opponent's rebuttals.
Aerogant is arrogant

I'm not arrogant. The president is. Prideful parents are. Religious people are. Politicians are. Business dogs and top dogs are. Me? Arrogant? I guess wise men are arrogant, since their "wise phrases recorded in history" contain their thoughts on stupidity and ignorance. Got to love Einstein's "arrogant" remarks on human stupidity. My! What arrogance! It's almost as if it wasn't arrogance at all! Just the T.R.U.T.H.
school years should be shorter

I am Con against this argument. Since Pro did not clear terms I will. school year; a 180 day year that usually covers beginning of fall to around the end of spring Now that the terms are cleared up I will begin my arguments. 1) America learning discipline When you say school year I am guessing you mean in America. America already is becoming the lazy country, so all we need is more days off. An average Chinese student your age (13; 7th grade) will be in school from 7am to 5pm. After that the student will most likely take after school classes to help them learn more. This is just an example for how other countries are starting to come up on America. If we let down the levels even more then America is going to fall behind. 1) http://hechingered.org... 2) Rebuttals This is the time for me to look over your arguments and rebut them. My first rebut is when you said " Summer also provides an opportunity to help out in the community, and interact with new people at summer camps." Come on lets face it. There are the kids that go to summer camp, but most of the kids are playing video games and doing nothing during their time. I actually have a source on how many people play video games. It's not good, nearly 91% of kids play video games. If these kids are playing often during school then think of how much they play during the summer, and lots of those kids are playing violent video games, an even more of a reason not to go outside. Because trust me, I'm a 14 year old boy, if I get stuck on one of my violent video games I can be stuck on the game for a while. I'm kind of getting off topic but my point though is 91% of kids play video games, and lets face it. Even if a kid goes to a camp for a week. There's still 7 weeks of nothing, and if we extend that 8 weeks (only estimate) then those kids will have even more time to play games and do nothing. Also most people won't go on trips, which I had a feeling may be a rebuttal on your next round. For most people there isn't that kind of money to go on a trip, and even if they do have the money, they don't want to spend it on a trip. 2)http://www.healthline.com... Wrapping up arguments I just want you to know that since I am debating this it doesn't mean that I don't agree, I am a 14 year old boy I get what you are saying it would be nice, but I understand why we can only have 2 months, so just no hard feelings and I give my best to my opponent.
school years should be shorter

I think schools should have much longer vacations, like, 3 weeks of free time or more added to the summer that we already have, and maybe 1 added to winter break.Yes, education is a great thing, but kids also should have more time with family, staying active, doing what they like to do. Summer also provides an opportunity to help out in the community, and interact with new people at summer camps. also, kids can be free from all of the stress of homework, and can enjoy being free. Myself, as a seventh grader, (13 years of age) want to have more time off, because, hey, who doesn't want to have fun? It seems like our summer is very short, and it comes and goes faster than a car on the highway. I hope you enjoyed my explanation, and also that you agree with me on the subject. bye
The U.S. should let Muslims in

https://mobile.nytimes.com... https://www.theguardian.com... your argument of "half of Muslims are not opposed to gay marriage" Isn't very compelling considering those are British Muslims. The I've talked to many gays about Islam and Muslims and they are honestly terrified. The Karan says that gay men deserved to be punished. There is a difference between thinking someone is wrong and killing them for thinking they're wrong. Gays in Islam are so scared of the punishments of being gay that they essentially castrate themselves. Women, genital mutilation, social restriction,and the Hijab. It's right to say someone is like the religion they praise. Most Muslims I've met in the USA (you don't have to accept this statement because it's based on personal experience) aren't real Muslims. I ask how many times they pray a day so they reply "maybe once when I can" then I ask if they have read the Quran, "nope" so then I ask a basic principle of their religion "What are the pillars". they can list three at most. Typically the good Muslims are the ones who know the least of their religion. Essentially everything the U.S. citizens have fought for over 200 years about is not supported by Muslims. ISIS said they would use Muslim immigration to sneak into the U.S.A . I totally agree that not all Muslims are like that but when the numbers are close to 50% and we are talking mass immigration Its not exactly helpful. Also gays are terrified of the Muslim Culture. if I missed a source for a stat feel free to call me out :)
The U.S. should let Muslims in

There are also verses in the bible that discourage homosexuality. For instance in Leviticus 18:22, it states "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Does this mean that all Christians are opposed to homosexuality? Does this mean all Christians believe in discrimination? Religions are incredibly complex, and even within the same religion there is disagreement. Believers of a common religion are diverse and many hold differing opinions. Another way to interpret one of your statistics is that half of Muslims are not opposed to gay marriage. It is wrong of us to categorize all believers under one category, one verse in their holy book. I have read parts of the Qur'an; please find me a specific passage from the Qur'an that support all or most Muslims are dangerous and practice discrimination. Also, please support that all or most Muslims believe this verse and practice it in their daily lives. Additionally, could you please post where you got your facts from? It is unfortunate that in today's society, there are many untrustworthy sites that spread false information. Even if your facts are correct, this does not mean that Muslims themselves are dangerous and bad people. The people who committed these acts in Britain are bad people, yes, but every religion has its bad apples. We cannot judge groups of millions by the delinquent acts of their few worst individuals. Additionally, if you think the practices in Muslim countries are backwards, perhaps the citizens only act this way because their system mandates they must act that way. We Americans are lucky that we had brave enough ancestors to fight for freedom, for liberty, and that they won. Every country is not so lucky, and the facts that you see, assuming they are true, are only a representation of the beliefs of those at the top, those that make the rules and force people to abide by their beliefs. They are not necessarily the attitudes of the average citizen. The people who seek to come here have gone through great troubles to come and many have left behind everything they know and love to immigrate. They come here for a better life, not to destroy the country they admire.
The U.S. should let Muslims in

The Muslim Culture is far from peaceful. Read the Qur'an. turn to any given page and read 10 pages. You will find some sort of discrimination whether it be to gays of females. I'm going to use Britain as an example. 51% of British Muslims believe being gay should be illegal. That isn't radical Muslims, those are just average Muslims. You know just as well as I do Muslims oppress women (Much more than just driving) There was a Muslim rape gang in Britain that raped more than 15 people but the police didn't report it because they were too afraid to be called racist. Muslims are also evolving backwards. The profit Muhammad said it was okay to marry your first cousin. The result of that is 70% of Muslims being inbred which leads to a very high chance of retardation and many effects that are scary. I will be pro Muslim immigration when they reform themselves. (I apologize for my format lol. I had to do this round on my phone)
The U.S. should let Muslims in

I accept. I'm interested to hear why you support your views. Argument) We have no evidence to show that Muslims are any more dangerous than you, me, Christians, Buddhists, Hindis, etc. There is also nothing wrong with Muslim culture. We are just aware of the worst of the Muslim people due to terrorist attacks and news coverage. This shouldn't be a debatable topic, though people have their reasons and I am always open to the opinions of others. However, it is unfair and un-American to discriminate a whole group of people based on religion, skin color, or culture.
The U.S. should let Muslims in

With this being the last bit of the debate I am going to go over the "Radical Muslim minority myth" and it is just that, a myth. The lie of the peace of Muslims has been spread by many huge influence's (Oboma being one) Its important to remember I'm not talking about just the terrorists. To call them all terrorists is in fact racist. Radical beliefs are much different than terrorist beliefs. According to PEW research there are about 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet. Indonesia is the world's most popular Muslim country (about 205 million Muslims) more than 50% of those Muslims support sharia law is the word of God. Despite the truth of this 70% of people blame the US for 9-11. There are more Muslim countries with higher percentages but we are talking immigration so I used the most populated. In Egypt about %75 of that Muslims had mixed or positive feelings about binladen. Doing the simple research of Countries and radical Muslim belief so out of Indonesia's population 50% support sharia law that's about 143 million people, 65% of Egyptians wanted strict sharia law there is 55.2 million people, Out of Pakistan's population 76% believe on sharia law that is 135.4 million, Bangladesh just over 25% said suicide bombing or targeting of civilians was justified then 82% beloved in sharia law that's 121.9 million (%66 said honor killings of women were sometimes justified) , in Nigeria 71% believe sharia law that's 53.7 million, Iran %83 believe in sharia law that's 62.1 million people, Turkey (probably the most moderate Muslim country) %32 said honor killings were sometimes justified that's 23.9 million people, Marco just I've 75% believe sharia law that's 24.6 million, Iraq %78 said honor killings of women can sometimes be justified that's 24.3 million. Afghanistan %99 believe in sharia law that's 24 million, Jordan has ab9ut 3.8 million radical Muslims, Palestinian areas (they get our tax money aswell) %89 support sharia law that's 3.83 million, France 35% of their Muslims said suicide bombings were justified That's 1.6 million, Great Britain had about 2.2 million, NOW THE GREAT U.S.A about 500,000 radical Muslims here in the U.S already. The total of all those countries is 680,030,000 Radical Muslims out of 942.4 total Muslims. That's not a minority, That's a majority. http://www.pewforum.org... http://www.pewresearch.org... http://www.pewglobal.org... http://www.pewforum.org...
Trolls manipulate font's to gain creedo with their masses, the dumb voters.

Why am I not so surprised? I've been monitoring your posts and comments, and your immaturity is extremely obvious with that last comment of yours. Mind your manners here on DDO, please. I see your resorting to harassment as an indirect acknowledgement of your defeat, so to put it simply, you're a sore loser. However, since you have not posted an argument, I believe that my statements from Round 2 is more than sufficient for my argument. Remind me not to have another debate with you; people as foolish as you are the reason why adults look down on minors. Well, I better not waste my time on someone with deaf ears and a thick skull. Voters, use common sense and vote wisely and civilly on this debate. Thank you.
does god exist

Since I have successfully illustrated a god can exist which would not be obliged to respond to suffering (a non-personal god), I will move on to arguments. Before I do this, I must point out it is not possible to scientifically 'prove' god exists (or does not exist) as god is outside the realm of science. Therefore, I will be providing argument(s) to establish it is reasonable to believe in god. The First Cause: 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2: The universe began to exist. C1: The universe must have been caused. Given this, we can follow with: 1: If the universe was caused, then that cause is God.C2: God Exists For the time being, I will leave it there. I am not certain if Pro intends to respond, and overkill is over-rated. Back to you, Pro!
does god exist

Thank you for instigating this debate, Con!For the purposes of this debate, I will play devil's advocate and argue for god. It is important to point out a benevolent god is not the only plausible possibility. Con has suggested god would come to the rescue of those who are suffering in one form or another, and that would be true of a personal benevolent god. However, it would not be true of a deistic god. Let me more clearly define a deism:"Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation."[1]A deistic god would be a deity who created the universe and the laws that govern it. The universal laws naturally brought all life into existence with no intervention necessary by this god. Since a deistic god is by definition impersonal, there is no reason to assume he/she/it would intervene on behalf of those suffering.Lastly, Con has made the claim, "God does not exist", and having made a positive claim of certainty must share the burden of proof. Good luck to you, Con.[1] http://www.deism.com...