BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dead people should be harvested for food.

Although the religious and moral oppositions would exist they could easily be overcome. People eventually get used to thinks, its called being desensitized. So if the government made it mandatory, people would get used to the idea of eating people because people are generally to timid and cowardly to attempt to overthrow the government on the means of what we have to eat. You also said that people would have to be trained to harvest the meat, well, you're right, but, that would help the economy and help starving people, instead of just helping the economy. You also said that only a small portion of the body can be eaten. Well that small portion could still feed someone who direly needs food, now couldn't it.
Dead people should be harvested for food.

Dead people should be harvested for food. I say this because unreal amounts of money go into burying the dead in expensive boxes. That money could be spent on people who can't eat, and the bodies of the people being buried could also be used for food to feed the hungry and starving. I am not suggesting that people be harvested as our main source of food and diet, but, if we were able to make the dead weight (pun intended) of the new corpses into food, we could help to destroy the numbers of hungry people, and turn them into unhungry people.
Dead people should be harvested for food.

Well, I am going to start off by addressing your P.S. and yes it is i don't actually support cannibalism. But, for the sake of the debate, ignore that, please. You said that religious and moral objections shouldn't be ignored, although, idealistically religious objections should be ignored because that shows a favor to a specific religion, which is strictly frowned upon. Morals are also changed by society and the way society acts, so, moral objections could be easily changed with PSA's and other smalls forms of propaganda. The possibility of corpse consumption is more likely than you think.
Chart positions or YouTube views do not represent how good an artist is

First off, thank you for starting the argument. This will be a really good one to go for, one that's difficult but not impossible. Definition for "represent"- allege; claim. This is the definition on Google that worked best in the context. Does it represent it? Following this definition, yes- it's a claim that they earned all the fan support, which means it usually represents accurately who is likely to suit your tastes. Note, a claim- not necessarily true, but as it often is, the logical answer is that yes, Youtube views often show how good a video is. Of course, there are some exceptions. However, these are, as I said, exceptions, and these are rare enough that you can safely assume that most videos with lots of views will be good. There are of course some rising stars who will present high level videos for a small audience. But a good video is likely to have lots of views, even if the channel that made it is still small. As such, for the vast majority of videos with high numbers of views, you can expect a high quality video. And you can expect that the vast majority of videos with low numbers of views will not be nearly so good. So as a perfect sample, no, but as a representation, yes, Youtube views tend to show how good the video is. In conclusion, as a representation, high numbers of view suggest that the video will probably be one you'll enjoy more than videos with low numbers of views, with only a few exceptions.
Chart positions or YouTube views do not represent how good an artist is

Don't worry, sometimes things like that happen, not a big deal. Now in response to your points. 1. Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But an artist has usually done "good" if they are high on the charts and/or have lots of Youtube views. Whereas an artist who has less views may have done good to those who watched it, but they have not made as many people think they are good. One of the many definitions for the word good- giving pleasure; enjoyable or satisfying. Surely if a Youtube video is watched more, it has given more pleasure, joy and satisfaction than one which fewer people have watched. So it is therefore more good than other videos. So while to certain individuals one is better than another, the one that has been watched more has done good things for more people. 2. The thing is that the other artist has earned the major record deal, if the better artist has the talent, they also get offered a major record deal. And again- A definition of the word represent- allege; claim. More views is a claim that the video is better. Whether it is or not depends, but usually it does accurately portray that the video is superior. And if a song with half a million view is popular, than a song with one and a half million is even more so. More exposure usually comes to better Youtubers, and better Youtubers can afford to pay for better songs, for better special effects, etc. So on average, yes, higher views = better video. So by the definitions of the question, I should win this one. Literal definition of arguments point- Chart positions or YouTube views do not make a claim about how much pleasure an artist gives. It does make a claim that it will give more pleasure than a less popular video. Whether you in particular will receive that pleasure is unsure, but it does give the world more pleasure, most of the time.
Chart positions or YouTube views do not represent how good an artist is

I regretfully, through my own fault, missed the deadline for the previous argument. Please do not take my negligence as a sign of disrespect or or surrender. 1. First I would like to argue that the idea that one artist is superior to another is simply a matter of taste. Listeners will forever argue whether an artist, a genre, a song, or an album is better then another. They will always disagree because no matter what the argument is, you cannot change an individuals musical preference which will always be unique to them. Music is an artistic form of expression and I argue that because of this the quality of music cannot be judged based on the idea of 'units sold." 2. I would like to argue that popularity is not a measure of artistic quality. An independent artist without much recognition could potentially be a much better artist then an extremely popular artist with a major record deal. I would like to argue that in terms of music most artists, with a few exceptions, have climbed the charts have done so not based on their own merit, but because of the support and promotion of a major record label. I would like to ask the question, is a popular song on YouTube with 0.5m views inferior to a song with 1.5m views? The answer is no. Exposure is what causes higher view counts, not individual artist or song quality.
My opponent picks the topic.

Welcome to the debate. This is a special debate, with special formats as follows.FORMAT1st round-Pro Introduce the parametersSelf-explanatory1st round-Con Provide the possible argumentsProvide ten possible arguments for me to choose from. Do NOT try to define or explain the arguments, as I can interpret the arguments any way I wish. Anything here should only be greetings or topics. I decide which side I wish to be, IGNORE the fact that debate.org says that I'm pro. The debate topics have to be somewhat different, to prevent ten rewording of a single topic. I can change the topic you provide slightly as well for the debate to be a fun experience. At the start of round 2 I will underline and bold the confirmed topic. 2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments.2nd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.3rd round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Pro Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments.4th round-Con Argument & Rebuttal.Provide your arguments and rebuttal in this round. Again, please cite research provide evidence for arguments. Pro Conclusion & Rebuttal.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.5th round-Con Conclusion & Rebuttal.Rebut arguments and provide a conclusion in this round. No new arguments.No abusive language please. The topics that con picks should not be abusive. I hope we have a good debate.Time limit for each argument: 1 day.Character limit: 5000Thank you.
My opponent picks the topic.

Note: this is NOT an argument, just a discussion to clear things up for future debates. The topic "My opponent picks the topic” is illogical” When accepting a debate on debate.org the site will then list the debate parameters before you confirm the challenge. The parameters are as followed: Position of topic (pro or con), rounds, voting period, time to argue, argument max, voting comments. In this case it listed that I would take the con position of the topic "My opponent picks the topic". Since the instigator is the one who literally picks the topic it is then impossible for the contender to pick the topic. There is a predetermined winner If I were to follow your parametersI have told you to ignore the fact that debate.org says you're con.. If we were to follow the parameters you laid out in your first argument than I would automatically win. You have taken the pro position of the topic, but the rules you had laid out in your first argument states that I provide 10 potential topics for you to choose. If you were to choose the topic then I would not get to pick the topic. Since I am your opponent I would automatically win the debate. Sorry about the topic / explanation conflict. However, I believe that has not impeded your ability to understand that you provide 10 potential topics.Thank you.
My opponent picks the topic.

org the site will then list the debate parmeters before you confirm the challenge. The parameters are as followed: Position of topic (pro or con), rounds, voting period, time to argue, argument max, voting comments. In this case it listed that I would take the con position of the topic "My opponent picks the topic". Since the instigator is the one who literally picks th topic it is then impossible for the contender to pick the topic. There is a predetermined winner If I were to follow your parameters If we were to follow the parameters you laid out in your first argument than I would automatically win. You have taken the pro position of the topic, but the rules you had laid out in your first argument states that I provide 10 potential topics for you to choose. If you were to choose the topic then I would not get to pick the topic. Since I am your opponent I would automatically win the debate. I look forward to your response.
My opponent picks the topic.

I have clearly pointed out that the debate is a special one. You have NOT supplied me ANY topics to argue about. It is very clear that that you are to provide 10 arguments, and that the heading is a placeholder for the real topic. Besides, I haven't even chose a side:"2nd round-Pro Argument & selection of topic.I will provide a confirmed topic here, and supply my arguments as necessary. My side (pro/con) will also be clearly stated here. Please cite all research and arguments. Please provide evidence for all arguments."I cannot choose a topic since you have not posted any, and thus I cannot choose my side either.
The Character Limit at Debate.org is a Nuisance and Should Be Removed.

That argument could be a problem with the current system, and my idea wouldn't drastically exacerbate it in any way. My posts are generally longer, but I'd venture that I may not win this debate because I haven't seen a whole lot of support coming my way. Your attack is simply based off of problems with the voters, not the plan. Any disadvantage isn't unique to my idea. I do agree with the voters not voting on the persuasiveness of the debaters, but rather their own personal stance. I guess its just something we have to deal with. Take it with a grain of salt because it is inevitable.
The Character Limit at Debate.org is a Nuisance and Should Be Removed.

So you suggest doubling the amount of avalible characters. This would hurt many debaters. If someone was to use all of the characters, people might automatically jump to the conclusion that the longer argument is right. As a teacher of mine one said, "You don't have to say much to be right, you just have to be right." This can almost be related to the "vote on the argument, not your favorite side" thing.
The Character Limit at Debate.org is a Nuisance and Should Be Removed.

HERE IS YOUR ARGUMENT- I beleive it was added as a sort of parrallel into normal debate, serving as a sort of time limit. However, online debate is very different from speech and debate, and therefore doesn't deserve a limiting function such as the character limit. HERE ARE YOUR REASONS. Reasons there should be no character limit: 1. It is a nuisance 2. It gets in the way of serious debate 3. It has no purpose 4. Removing it could only have positive impacts 5. There are no negative impacts You have 4 reasons. Saying that something is positive then saying it isn't negative is a little childish. Here are some reasons for HAVING the limit- 1.It prevents people from going extremley into depth. 2.It prevents people from just copying and pasting from websites most of the time. 3.It helps debate.org keep its bandwith strong. 4.It serves a purpose- just to contradict you saying that it doesn't. 5.You get 24,000 characters in a 3 round debate. That should be more than enough. This argument has 6,948 characters remaining.
The Character Limit at Debate.org is a Nuisance and Should Be Removed.

I beleive the character limit is a nuisance to seriosu debaters, and in some cases (see my debate on Africa, in which I have had to delete several things on almost every post due to the character limit) actually limits the debate. I beleive that there should be no character length, but rather a trust that no one will go ridiculously in depth with superfluous information. Added to this I can see no reason for it to be around. At the very least, I support lengthening it. I beleive it was added as a sort of parrallel into normal debate, serving as a sort of time limit. However, online debate is very different from speech and debate, and therefore doesn't deserve a limiting function such as the character limit. Reasons there should be no character limit: 1. It is a nuisance 2. It gets in the way of serious debate 3. It has no purpose 4. Removing it could only have positive impacts 5. There are no negative impacts
God Exists

Ok i'll give it my best shot. This is the first time I'd be arguing this debate. I'm pretty uneducated, so If I break your rules in some way, please let me know. I'll try to endeavor to express my opinion in respect to your rules. How do you define God? Please answer this question. It could give me useful information in constructing my next argument. If you don't have any proof of IMPOSSIBLE miracles, then I would postulate that you can't prove he exists. I capitalized that because I am not interested in hearing any 1 in a trillion shot miracles. I am being very literal to completely breaking the laws of physics, not to how we think the laws of physics was broken. I can prove that an apple exists by showing you the apple. I can prove that the world is round by theoretically(this isn't semantics, it just means it's not practical) taking you into a spaceship and leaving earth's orbit to see it from an outside point of view which would indicate it being round. You have to literally prove to me God exists. If can't then you are wrong without using the qualifier "I believe".
Official Winter Tournament: This House believes that the EU should abandon nuclear energy

The EU's Power plants are far too dangerous for the citizens in Europe.Such a tragedy as the Fukushima accident caused a lot of deaths due to the melting of 3 nuclear reactors, which caused a nuclear accident. What happened after this? 1,000 people died from the accident while people maintained the evacuation.What happens when a tragedy strikes places in Europe? Reactors have a chance of going down and melting. Radiation is likely to occur when a power plant would melt. And what happens if a reactor goes down. People are very likely to die. http://www.world-nuclear.org...According to a idebate.org, there are more than 100,000 citizens that live in proximity (30 kilometers) of 111 nuclear reactors. 100,000 citizens tried to evacuate in the Fukushima accident, and 10,000 died. So as for Europe, 100,000 citizens for every 111 nuclear reactors would have to evacuate if a tragedy like an earthquake happened, which is possible. For the past 10 days, there have been several strong earthquakes in the past 18 days of Europe. One example shows how there was an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.5 in Greece, which also appears to have a lot of earthquakes. This shows that there is a chance that an earthquake could cause damage to a reactor, which is a building. Earthquakes within the range of 6-7 can cause damage to buildings, and it is a distinct possibility that the nuclear energy inside could blow up and emit radiation, which is capable of killing people.http://idebate.org...http://www.emsc-csem.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...Considering the high amount of reactors and the amount of citizens that live close to them, a tragedy such as an earthquake can cause at least a thousand deaths. If more earthquakes of such a high magnitude keep happening, a nuclear plant can be destroyed and release a ton of nuclear energy. Europe would then not be safe.
All Truth is Subjective

Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Main Argument Round 3: Rebuttal Round 4: Final evidence(No Rebuttal) Here is the definition for Truth: the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true : the quality or state of being true : a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Here is subjective: sub"jec"tive səbG2;jektiv/Submit adjective 1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. "his views are highly subjective" synonyms:personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive "a subjective analysis" antonyms:objective dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence. 2. GRAMMAR of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence. (https://www.google.com...) If you accept this debate then you accept the given format and definitions. Otherwise, any can debate.
Morality, like gravity, is a physical force in nature

I (Pro) would like to explore, from a scientific vantage point, with my opponent (Con) in the construct of morality being part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made. I would like to keep the debate within the following spectrum: That is, morality is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The topic of life's Unalienable Rights have been debated recently, and I encourage Con should review this debate for background. http://www.debate.org... Ideally Con is familiar with the following two references, but it is not a prerequisite: http://www.bookdaily.com... http://www.amazon.com... Pro would like to keep the debate in the realm of physical science as oppose to metaphysical speculation. Round 1 is for Acceptance Round 2 is for Arguments Round 3 is for Rebuttal Round 4 is for Closing Statements Pro is reopening this debate because my opponent forfeited. I would advise Con, before accepting this debate, to review the previous: http://www.debate.org...
Islam VS Christianity

So, to start, I would like to say that fighting is in no way a good thing! Fighting and definently are two completely different things! You descibe defending and call it fighting. After two rounds, no, I haven't gotten to why, because you have yet to do anything but close your eyes, plug your ears, and say "Nope! Not possible!" I didn't bother explaining something you didn't understand! No matter, I'll continue anyways. So, I will make this clear, (I'm sorry if this was not clear earlier)- GOD DID NOT MAKE THE TRINITY, HE IS THE TRINITY! God is made up of three distinctly seperate couterparts. I'm sorry I did not portray this well earlier in the debate. So yes, Jesus is God. But, he is also taking the role of a human who will spread the word of God. So, in worshipping Jesus, we do worship God. And also, saying that we should only worship the one who created us is like saying (and yes I know love and worship are different) that we should only love our parents, not our step-parents.Ok, so I apologize about the pluses thing, but how about instead of math, we equate religion (and the trinity) to the beauty of the earth God created for us- specifically, clovers! “You tell us that there are three gods and yet one,” the puzzled Irish said when St. Patrick was preaching the gospel to them in the 5th century AD. “How can that be?” The saint bent down and plucked a shamrock. “Do you not see,” he said, “how in this wildflower three leaves are united on one stalk, and will you not then believe that there are indeed three persons and yet one God?” Oh, I hope you did not just say that " the Trinity isn't, and never will be, logical enough to be the base of a whole religion."! Do you mean, beside for the fact that there already is a major religion based off of it? That's illogical, not the base of my religion!About the verse, that is how I interpret it! I'm sorry for not speaking formally, but I see that verse as, "Allah knows that violence is what you need, even if you don't see it that way!" So I guess I won't even get into that next point, because I know my God will help me into Heaven, and I'm sure (not being sarcastic or anything, I promise) that you are certain that what you have talked about is completely and utterly true to you. But, it is not that way to me and I will worship my God.Now, to the bible verses you quoted. I have yet to see you do anything but pull "bad" quotes from the bible into this, and I have not seen any GOOD quotes from the Qur'an coming from you. I will also point out that a majority of the quotes from the bible that you use are from the old testement, which contains rules Jesus himself said are not of importance anymore. Most christians do not follow the old testement's laws as their laws. So, yes, I fully believe that Christianity is the superior religion, but I clearly have some bias! Thanks for the great debate!