BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dioxins found in meats are not really dangerous

Chris Masterjohn. "A Case for Vegetarianism?". October 17th, 2005 - "The assertion that dioxins accumulate specifically in animal products is simplistic and inaccurate, and in fact a diet rich in pastured animal products provides protective nutrients, especially vitamin A, that directly oppose the toxic actions of dioxins in animal experiments, while a diet rich in most plant fats provides compounds that enhance the actions of dioxin. The argument that we should avoid animal products because of their dioxin concentration is thus no less flawed than the argument that we should avoid animal products because they contain saturated fat and cholesterol."
Dominion and meat-eating can and should be excercised responsibly.

The notion of man's dominion over animals need not be thought of as a blank check for man to exploit animals. Indeed, it may be appropriate to connect the notion of "dominion" to stewardship" over animals. Yet, humans can be good stewards of animals while continuing to eat them. It is merely necessary that humans maintain balance, order, and sustainability in the animal kingdom. But, again, this does not require the abandonment of meat-eating.
Humans have "dominion" over evolutionarily "domesticated" animals

There are certain animals that have evolved with humans, through mutual self-interests in survival, to become "domesticated" by humans. Cats, dogs, pigs, and chickens are examples. Our "dominion" over these animals is certainly biological and evolutionary. Farming and eating these animals is merely a continuation of this evolutionary history of domestication. It is not wrong or right; it simply is.
Eating meat is entirely natural for omnivorous humans.

Like our early ancestors, humans have teeth designed for tearing flesh as well as for crushing and chewing vegetable fibres. Our stomachs are also adapted to eating both meat and vegetable matter. All of this means that eating meat is part of being human. Like many other species, human beings were once hunters. In the wild animals kill and are killed, often very brutally and with no idea of “rights”. As mankind has progressed over thousands of years we have largely stopped hunting wild animals. Instead we have found kinder and less wasteful ways of getting the meat in our diets through domestication. Farm animals today are descended from the animals we once hunted in the wild.
Vegetarianism is important in the fight against global warming

Meat production is highly inefficient in land-use. This often means that forests are cut-away in order to create room for the grazing of cattle. This eliminates important carbon-sinks that are necessary in reducing atmospheric CO2 levels and fighting global warming. Clear-cutting can also increase the reflectivity of the Earth's surface, which contributes to warming. Meat production also generally consumes much more energy than other forms of farming. Since much of this energy involves carbon-based fuels, meat production contributes significant carbon into the atmosphere. Finally, the methane gas from the bowl-functions of cattle contribute to the global warming problem.
Animals have emotions, personalities, and souls just like humans

Henry David Thoreau - "I saw deep in the eyes of the animals the human soul look out upon me. I saw where it was born deep down under feathers and fur, or condemned for a while to roam four-footed among the brambles, I caught the clinging mute glance of the prisoner and swore that I would be faithful."[1] Many pet-owners believe that their pets have personalities. Socially, in many countries, eating typical house pets (dogs and cats) is considered a major social taboo. However, other animals (cows, pigs, chickens) are raised as food. This conflicting and inconsistent attitude towards animals indicates how socially determined our attitudes towards meat-eating is. Vegetarianism simply extends the typical attitude towards common household pets to other animals species.
Many special environments have been created by livestock farming

– for example chalk downland in England and mountain pastures in many countries. Ending livestock farming would see these areas go back to woodland with a loss of many unique plants and animals. Growing crops can also be very bad for the planet, with fertilisers and pesticides polluting rivers, lakes and seas. Most tropical forests are now cut down for timber, or to allow oil palm trees to be grown in plantations, not to create space for meat production.
Farming is evolutionary and mutually-beneficial for humans and animals.

There are certain animals that have evolved with humans, through mutual self-interests in survival, to become "domesticated" by humans. Cats, dogs, pigs, and chickens are examples. We provide shelter and sustenance in exchange for their work, bodily produce, or flesh. Indeed, domesticated farm animals have evolutionarily "succeeded" in this way, far outliving and out-proliferating their long-extinct ancestors.
Cruelty to animals is wrong, but farming/meat-eating is not always cruel/wrong.

Animals are given food, shelter and care if they become ill or injured. When it is time to slaughter them, the end is quick and pain-free. After all, unhappy and stressed animals provide poor meat, so it is in farmers’ interests to look after them well. Some intensive farming methods are hard to defend, but that is a reason for passing laws to protect animals better. There is nothing wrong in principle with farming livestock.
That the retarded have rights does not justify animal rights

This is frequent argument of animal rights activists; that animals deserve rights because they have at least as much capacity to reason as do some retarded humans, who retain rights. The problem with this argument is that it fails to see rights as a thing that must be shared among a group of creatures, not something that is extended on an individual basis. Therefore, the question is not whether some humans are incapable of having rights, but rather whether human kind, as a species, is capable of having rights. They are. Non-human animals, conversely, as a class of organisms, are not capable of holding rights. It is, therefore, appropriate to categorically draw the line on rights between humans and non-humans.
Meat-eating is linked to a range of serious illness such as food-poisoning.

Almost all dangerous types of food-poisoning (e.g. E-coli, salmonella) are passed on through meat or eggs. Close contact between humans and animals also leads to zoonosis – diseases such as bird ‘flu which can be passed on from animals to humans. Hunters eating apes and monkeys is thought to have brought HIV/AIDS to humans. And using animal brains in the processed feed for livestock led to BSE in cattle and to CJD in humans who ate beef from infected cows.
Trying terrorists shows confidence in US system and ideals

Stuart Taylor. "No Need To Fear A Manhattan Terrorist Trial." National Journal. November 21, 2009: "One advantage is that a civilian trial will show Americans and the rest of the world that our government is sure it can prove the 9/11 defendants guilty in the fairest of all courts; is confident that the hate-filled propaganda of the accused will appeal only to barbarians like themselves; and will not let fear of more terrorist attacks drive the trial away from the most logical venue, which is the federal courthouse near the scene of the most horrific crime."
Military tribunals are a propaganda win for terrorists

"Commentary: U.S. legal system is capable of trying 9-11 suspects." The Miami Herald. Nov. 16, 2009: "The obligation to stand trial in an open court of law is a defeat for the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, who once expressed a desire to plead guilty in the military commission system established in Guantánamo. Because the trial venue has been discredited around the Islamic world -- and among U.S. allies -- fulfilling his wish would have solidified his status as martyr on behalf of a distorted version of Islam."
Trying terrorists in NYC invites a terrorist attack

Charles Krauthammer. "Travesty in New York." Real Clear Politics. November 20, 2009: "Apart from the fact that any such trial will be a security nightmare and a terror threat to New York -- what better propaganda-by-deed than blowing up the entire courtroom, making KSM a martyr and making the judge, jury and spectators into fresh victims? -- it will endanger U.S. security."
Military tribunals have performed poorly versus civilian courts

Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith. "Holder's reasonable decision." Washington Post. November 20th, 2009: "In deciding to use federal court, the attorney general probably considered the record of the military commission system that was established in November 2001. This system secured three convictions in eight years. The only person who had a full commission trial, Osama bin Laden's driver, received five additional months in prison, resulting in a sentence that was shorter than he probably would have received from a federal judge."
KSM will almost certainly be convicted in NY civilian courts

Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009: "Others complain that Mr. Mohammed might take advantage of quirks of the criminal justice system and go free. That’s highly unlikely. First, he has already confessed to the crime; and, given the zero acquittal rate for terrorists in New York previously, any anxiety about a “not guilty” verdict seems unwarranted."
Military tribunals do not uphold rule of law

Stuart Taylor. "No Need To Fear A Manhattan Terrorist Trial." National Journal. November 21, 2009: "Trying the 9/11 defendants before military commissions, on the other hand, would be widely (if unfairly) denounced as designed to ensure convictions regardless of the evidence. A decision to continue holding the suspects without trial -- after eight years of presidential vows to put them on trial -- would be a damning admission that America is simply not up to the task of bringing war criminals to justice."
Terrorist trial in NY gives appearance of US weakness

Cal Thomas. "Trying terrorists in New York is dangerous." The Wichita Eagle. November 18, 2009: "It also will serve as a recruiting video for future terrorists, because it will demonstrate what, to them, is weakness. A strong nation would have tried these men in the military tribunals Congress authorized for that purpose. A weak nation imputes rights to noncitizens who want to do away with the very rights we are now going to afford them."
Trying terrorists in NY will not achieve anything

Cal Thomas. "Trying terrorists in New York is dangerous." The Wichita Eagle. November 18, 2009: "What do we hope to accomplish by trying these mass murderers on U.S. soil? Will it produce more troops from our NATO allies to finish the job in Afghanistan? Not likely. When the world sees how good and fair we are, will it love America more and will terrorists decide to kill us less? Only in the world of make-believe inhabited by American Civil Liberties Union lawyers."
9/11 suspects can be convicted without classified evidence

Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009: "John Yoo, a former Bush administration lawyer, argues that the trial would be an “intelligence bonanza” for our enemies. Also unlikely. Our prosecutors are certain that there is enough unclassified evidence to make their case. Moreover, the most prized intelligence is recent, specific and actionable. Al Qaeda today is most concerned with discovering when and where the next drone missile attack will take place in Pakistan, information not likely to be disclosed during a trial about a conspiracy hatched more than a decade ago."
Little difference between civilian courts and military tribunals

Margaret Carlson. "Big Apple Justice Fits Man Accused of 9/11." Bloomberg. Nov 19, 2009: "there is no longer much difference between a military and civilian trial. After the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the shortcomings of George W. Bush’s tribunals, Congress and the Obama administration granted more rights to the accused." Therefore, trying terrorists in civilian courts is little different, and not more risky.
Wrong to give some terrorists civilian trials and not others

Jarrett Skorup. "The hypocrisy of trying terrorists in New York." The Examiner. November 16, 2009: "Detainees will get a 'fair trial' in civilian court only if their conviction is assured. By implication, that suggests that detainees who go before military commissions will get an unfair trial. Presumably the administration would deny this and say the commission trials will be fair too. But if so, why is such a trial not good enough for Khalid Sheikh Mohammad?"
Trying terrorists risks releasing intelligence, costing lives

Charles Krauthammer. "Travesty in New York." Real Clear Politics. November 20, 2009: "Civilian courts with broad rights of cross-examination and discovery give terrorists access to crucial information about intelligence sources and methods. [...] That's precisely what happened during the civilian New York trial of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers. The prosecution was forced to turn over to the defense a list of two hundred unindicted co-conspirators, including the name Osama bin Laden. 'Within ten days, a copy of that list reached bin Laden in Khartoum,' wrote former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the presiding judge at that trial, 'letting him know that his connection to that case had been discovered.'"
Tribunals for terrorists is consistent with US Constitution

John C. Eastman. "Military tribunals are perfectly constitutional." Ashbrook Center. November 2001: "The Fifth Amendment requires indictment by a grand jury, but specifically excepted from that requirement are "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger." In other words, the men and women serving in our own military forces are not entitled to the benefits of trial in civilian courts, nor are civilians serving in the militia when they have been called into service. It would be odd indeed to read the Fifth Amendment as affording greater access to civilian courts to non-uniformed soldiers of terrorism waging war on the United States than it provides to our own soldiers and civilians."
Trying and imprisoning terrorists can create US jobs

Margaret Carlson. "Big Apple Justice Fits Man Accused of 9/11." Bloomberg. Nov 19, 2009: "The politics of the trial stems from Obama’s decision to announce the closing of Guantanamo before he had lined up takers for its prisoners. Now with unemployment at 10.2 percent, he could hold an auction for the officials in Illinois, Montana, Michigan and Colorado clamoring for the detainees to fill their underused prisons. The politician who wins the detainees isn’t going to get booted from office. He’s going to get a parade."
Courtroom rants of terrorists only expose them as hateful fools

Attorney General Eric Holder said in Congressional hearings in November of 2009 on his decision to try 9/11 terrorists in New York civilian courts: "I’m not scared of what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has to say at trial, and no one else needs to be afraid either.[...] I have every confidence that the nation and the world will see him for the coward that he is."[9]
Military tribunal would have been faster with KSM

Charles Krauthammer. "Travesty in New York." Real Clear Politics. November 20, 2009: "Alternatively, Holder tried to make the case that he chose a civilian New York trial as a more likely venue for securing a conviction. An absurdity: By the time Obama came to office, KSM was ready to go before a military commission, plead guilty and be executed. It's Obama who blocked a process that would have yielded the swiftest and most certain justice."
Trying terrorists in NY requires costly security

Dan McLaughlin. "Why Terrorists Don't Deserve A Court Date." CBS. November 18, 2009: "The additional security required to guard against #3 will cost the federal and city governments a fortune, interfere with the administration of justice in a busy federal district and busy federal prison, add to the traffic and delays already extant in lower Manhattan, and place a great burden on the jurors, judge, and prosecutors."
No TV cameras allowed in trials of 9/11 suspects

Steven Simon. "Why We Should Put Jihad on Trial." New York Times. November 17th, 2009: "Which brings us to the idea that allowing Mr. Mohammed to take the stand will give him a soapbox. The truth is, if the trial provides a propaganda platform for anybody, it will be for our side. [...] First, federal courts do not permit TV cameras in the courtroom, so the opportunity for “real time” jihadist propagandizing won’t exist."
Civilian trials avoid using evidence from coercive interrogations

Stuart Taylor. "No Need To Fear A Manhattan Terrorist Trial." National Journal. November 21, 2009: "Brutal interrogations. Holder and his team plan to prevent the 9/11 prosecution from morphing into a trial of the CIA for torture, Newsweek has reported, by avoiding or minimizing reliance on admissions derived (or arguably derived) from coercive interrogations. These admissions may include Mohammed's statements during a 2007 Guantanamo hearing that he personally beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl and "was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z."
NYC civilian trial re-opens wounds of 9/11 victims

"Don't 'trust' court to try terrorists." Lancaster Online. Nov 20, 2009: "Instead of a straightforward finding of guilt and execution in a military court, Americans who suffered the loss of loved ones on 9/11 will have to suffer through a lengthy trial designed to show the world that Americans are fair to terrorists. [...] And they will have to suffer that trial within blocks of where two planes commandeered by fellow terrorists flew into and destroyed the Twin Trade Towers."
Trying terrorists in NYC offers stage for grand-standing

Charles Krauthammer. "Travesty in New York." Real Clear Politics. November 20th, 2009: "For late-19th-century anarchists, terrorism was the "propaganda of the deed." And the most successful propaganda-by-deed in history was 9/11 -- not just the most destructive, but the most spectacular and telegenic. [...] And now its self-proclaimed architect, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, has been given by the Obama administration a civilian trial in New York. Just as the memory fades, 9/11 has been granted a second life -- and KSM, a second act: "9/11, The Director's Cut," narration by KSM. [...] September 11, 2001 had to speak for itself. A decade later, the deed will be given voice. KSM has gratuitously been presented with the greatest propaganda platform imaginable -- a civilian trial in the media capital of the world -- from which to proclaim the glory of jihad and the criminality of infidel America."
Terrorists trials won't make US greater target than already

Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith. "Holder's reasonable decision." Washington Post. November 20th, 2009: "it is unlikely to make New York a bigger target than it has been since February 1993, when Mohammed's nephew Ramzi Yousef attacked the World Trade Center. If al-Qaeda could carry out another attack in New York, it would -- a fact true a week ago and for a long time. Its inability to do so is a testament to our military, intelligence and law enforcement responses since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks."
Terrorists should not be given privileges of civilian courts

Susan Ferrechio. "McCain says trying KSM in New York would be like trying Nazi in San Francisco." San Francisco Chronicle. Washington Examiner. November 17th, 2009: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., compared the decision to try accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in New York City to trying Nazi war criminal Hermann Goering in San Francisco. "It's ridiculous. These are war criminals and terrorists and they should not be privy to regular courtroom procedures."
Trials of 9/11 terrorists in NYC will become a circus

Cal Thomas. "Trying terrorists in New York is dangerous." The Wichita Eagle. November 18, 2009: "Instead of a Manhattan courtroom less than a mile from the site of where the World Trade Center stood, the government should have chosen the Bronx Zoo, because a zoo is what will be created when this terrorist trial is held. [...] You don't need an imagination to predict that crazies will show up at this trial, including Islamic terrorists in training who want to emulate the acts of the defendants. Some might be 'inspired' to create another event at or near the courthouse. Cable TV will carry it all."
New York has been through terrorist trials before

Joe Slakes. "We Shouldn't Fear Terror Trials In NYC." Fox News. November 20th, 2009: "It is also an unfortunate truth that we have been through terrorist trials before in New York City. The prosecutors as well as the federal and city law enforcement officials are experienced and are prepared. There is probably no other location in the United States better prepared for this trial than New York. [...] Some argue that the trial puts New York at the center of the terrorist target. I would argue that we have always been there and we will not let fear rule the day."
McCain will put country first in solving challenges in US

"The Examiner endorses McCain-Palin". Baltimore Examiner. 24 Sept. 2008 - "America is at war overseas and in an economic crisis here at home. Many of her citizens believe the country is on the wrong track. It is for times such as these that men like John McCain are made, to put country first so that it can be put right in its time of need. For this reason, The Examiner endorses McCain for president and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for vice president."
Obama is 46 and plenty old enough to be president

Laura Sonneborn-Turetsky. "Obama is NOT Too Young". The Knight News. 6 June 2008 - "Barack Obama is 46 years old. There are several qualifications one must meet in order to become president of the United States. One of these is the '35 or older age requirement.' It is true that the United States is not the same country it was when the constitution was written. The responsibility of president has grown tremendously. Still, it is worth mentioning that not only does he make the cut, but he does it by 11 years."
Many Iraqis support the continued presence of US forces

Sheikh Mahmood Ejemi, head of the Ejmani tribe in Hiyt, believes the improved security could quickly unravel without sufficient US support. - "I advise the Americans to withdraw only when Iraqis can secure and achieve security and have a strong and capable military force to protect the borders and the populace. We need to have a national government that protects Iraqis, not works to isolate and kill them, like it is doing now. We need US support in fighting sectarian militias and al-Qaeda."[10]
War and senatorial experience does not give McCain leadership experience.

Just because McCain almost died in a war and has been a senator for a jillion years does not mean that he has leadership experience. Being the President of the United States requires a little bit more if you ask me. Obama has showed great power in the senate while McCain before 2 years ago has been pretty quiet. Obama is young and ready to make change. This change hasnt been the best, but could McCain have done better? I will let you decide.
John McCain is energetic and young at heart

"The case for John McCain". The Economist. 6 Dec 2007 - "The more persuasive reason for worrying about Mr McCain is his age. The senior senator for Arizona will be 72 if he takes office in January 2009—two years older than Ronald Reagan when he was inaugurated. But Mr McCain is an extraordinarily energetic 70-year-old, far more full of beans than many younger candidates. (“My philosophy is to just go, go like hell,” he says. “Full bore.”) The American constitution also provides an insurance mechanism against presidential death or illness. Provided Mr McCain chooses a sound vice-president, his many positive qualities outweigh worries about his age."