BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Hunting should be banned

Okay, so it's is not scientifically proven. If we stop hunting these animals, will we ever be able to prove if the method may work? There goes an idea of potentially saving some one else's live because now we can't get the resources. If we do stop hunting, we will eventually face the consequences of overpopulation. Some of the animals being hunted are chickens, cows, turkeys and more. The same exact animals that are being caged on farms, killed, and sold in the store to buy. So either way, theses animals are still facing death. According to the International Association Of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, There wouldn"t be nearly as many (if any) vast tracts of publicly owned land to hike, bike, bird-watch, dog-walk, horseback ride, or generally gambol around on if regulated hunting did not exist. Funds generated by license fees and federal excise taxes on outdoor gear pay for these lands by an overwhelming margin. This means that outdoorsman are doing most of the funding so we can enjoy other activities. According to a special positions paper, $746 million " Annual amount of money spent by hunters in the United States on licenses and public land access fees alone. Sportsmen"s licensing revenues account for more than half of all funding for state natural resource agencies ** $300 million " Additional money contributed to wildlife conservation every year by the more than 10,000 private hunting-advocate organizations, like the National Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation ** $4.2 billion " Amount of money sportsmen have contributed to conservation through a 10% federal excise taxes on firearms, ammunition, and gear since the 1937 Pittman-Robertson Act established the tax. Millions of acres of public-use land has been purchased, preserved, and maintained with this money. Here"s what all this translates into" The needs of wild animals " especially endangered and threatened species " are immeasurably better served by the millions of acres of well-maintained, patrolled habitat that hunters" dollars are paying for than the lies and propaganda dished out by animal rights groups. In fact, their efforts are among the most destructive forces facing wildlife of all types today. Call me a psychopath if you want. Hunting Is a sport. Learn more here https://www.wildlife.ca.gov... http://www.ncwildlife.org...
Animal Hunting should be banned

You started by saying how hunting is not harming the environment. 13 Animals have gone extinct due to the effects of hunting including The Dodo Bird, the Tasmanian Tiger, Passenger Pigeons, The Great Auk, The Quagga, The Falkland Island Wolf, The Zanzibar Leopard, The Caribbean Monk Seal, The Carolina Parakeet, The Atlas Bear, The Toolache Wallaby, The Sea Mink, and The Bubal Hartebeest. Many more animals are becoming extinct due to hunting. The Pangolin is a cat-sized creature that is described as a "Miniature Dinosaur" by one of CNN's publishers, John D. Sutter. Pangolin are hunted and trafficked every year by the thousands. It is said that their scales are boiled off and used as medicine, their meat is a delicacy in Vietnam and China, their blood is said to be a healing toxin. None of those have been scientifically proven. The beloved tiger, an animal that many see as a noble and stunning creature is being hunted to extinction for their fur and bones. You also claim that a few thousand years ago, hunting was the only way. This is the twenty-first Century, and we have more effective methods than hunting wild animals. We have farms where we have non-endangered animals including cows, chickens, and more. We also grow many plants thanks to modern science. If you got lost in the woods for three days, then I would understand the need to survive any means necessary. If you are living in a community where there are farms and stores, then there is no reason to hunt wild animals in their natural habitats. You call it a sport, then I call you a phsycopath. The claim that someone cannot buy meat from a store is false. You can either get a job, go for unemployment, or get food stamps from the government that hands them out for whoever needs them. You call hunting a tradition between generations, but some traditions are not meant to last forever. It was less a tradition and more survival two thousand years ago. This is the modern age, and we do not live in a barbaric society anymore. Things have changed, and that means so will some traditions.
Animal Hunting should be banned

Most people think that animal hunting is hurting the environment and should be banned. I believe that hunting should not be banned. A lot of people believe that people hunting animals for food will eventually cause extinction of our animals however, there are strict laws for hunters and how many animals they are allowed to take. Hunting goes way back in history. A few thousand years ago, hunting was the only way we knew. It was one of the only thing we could do to survive. Today, hunting is considered a sport. Hunters still need to eat and some of them hunt because they would rather harvest their own venison rather then buying it from the store. Some hunters prefer the taste of wild game then animals who have been raised on a farm and feed steroids and other chemicals. Other people simply may not be able to afford to buy meat from the store, therefore they fend for themselves by hunting. Hunting is often considered a tradition and is passed down from generation to generation.
Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god

Via Intelligent Design, humans are incapable of arguing logically for a typical god Definitions Typical god: an infinitely-intelligent, creator god (I didn’t have room to write it in the resolution; I’m not trying to pull a fast one). Intelligent Design: is an argument for the existence of god or, more generally, for an intelligent creator "based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world". God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe Omnipotence: Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. Rules 4 rounds, 2 week voting period, 48 hours to respond and 10k max. word rounds.
Parody Challenge

This is an open debate for a parody challenge. There will be a contest as to who can make a better parody of a song. I will give my opponent the privilege of picking the song. First round will be acceptance and decision of which song will be used. If the song does not follow the rules, I will begin the next round with my own parody. RULES: -The song picked must be widely known -The song picked must consist of at LEAST a verse and a chorus -The parody must consist of at LEAST a verse and the chorus -The parody must be somewhat PG (No sexual content or bad words)
Can you become female if you're male or vice versa

Before this house announce our arguments, I would like to clarify the difference between sex and gender. Sex is biological. It is related to the person's reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics. Gender is the social role the person identify with, it is about whether the person identify with the male or female role of his/her culture. You can change sex by surgery. Gender is the social roles and characteristics. A person's gender is changed when he/she identify with a different gender he/she previously identify with. This happens to teenagers more often because they are in puberty, so they may identify with a different gender easily. The examples of the difference between males and females does not prove that you cannot change gender or sex at all. The different between the two sexes is a fact, but it does not means that all females never commit suicide and offend violent crimes. Commit suicide and violent crime are examples of sex difference, but they can never be used to define the biological sex of a person. Does it mean that a women who commit violent crime must have changed gender? The same thing happens to the brain size. Do you mean in average, male brains are 14% bigger than females? There is a possibility that a women has a larger brain than a male? Lastly, I would like to ask con, were you refering to gender or sex?
Can you become female if you're male or vice versa

1: "Before this house announce our arguments, I would like to clarify the difference between sex and gender. Sex is biological. It is related to the person's reproductive system and secondary sex characteristics. Gender is the social role the person identify with, it is about whether the person identifies with the male or female role of his/her culture." I agree this definition isn't bad. d 2: "You can change sex by surgery" No, you can't change your fallopian tubes, your uterus, your sperm cells, your periods, or your ability to birth a child 3: Gender and sex don't vary independently, what you do is tied to your sex by a large amount. For example, the "Cultural differences" between genders are mostly biological. For example http://content.time.com... https://www.everydayhealth.com... https://www.webmd.com... 4: It does for sex, arguing that is abiological, now for gender, it is a heavy influence, now obviously it varies but some of it is character traits but the traits are more common and are much much more common in females, and the typical gender roles are almost synonymous with sex, then we have tomboys and things like that, but that's masculinity as a female or feminity as a male, why we should refer to this as being man or woman is beyond me.
Automatic weapons should be legalized.

I feel like I have effectively proved that the legalization of automatic weapons would make them more available for criminals (that point was just conceded), so I will address your other arguments here. You said that "in San Francisco in Richmond alone someone is shot ever[y] 2 or 3 days factor in the rest of America and multiple people are being shot daily". These people are being shot with guns: the very thing you are arguing to make more accessible. This seems like a basic flaw in logic: "too many people are being shot, so let's make guns more available". By arming citizens you are treating a symptom; not curing the problem. The solution here should focus more on keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and stopping violent crime at the roots than on arming citizens with automatic weapons. They are one more thing to be stolen in the case of a burglary and we cannot afford to have them become more accessible. I hope that we can progress towards a gun-free society one day and in the spirit of peace, I ask for a con vote on this debate.
Automatic weapons should be legalized.

My opponent said that by legalizing automatic weapons they would become more availbale to criminals. I concur to an extent this may be true however they will also allow citizens to have more protection. My opponent suggests that keeping them illegal will keep them in low numbers but is this really ture? Automatic weapons are currently illegal and I woudn't call them rare. Automatic weapons are in high number amoungst criminals. Earlier my opponent said:"I don't see my self getting robbed very soon. " #1 there is no way to predict future events so all though you may not "sense" a robbery in the future dosen't mean it can't happen and #2 it may not happen to you but might happen to someone else. According to officials in San Fransico in Richmond alone someone is shot ever 2 or 3 days factor in thge rest of America and multiple people are being shot daily, the chances of being assaulted aren't as irrational as you think. They may not be typical in our lives but still the same question comes to mind (I repeat again): Your house is being robbed. The man has an automatic weapon what do you want to have? A small pistol or a comprable weapon. In addition my opponent didn't respond to my statement about the in convinience of banning guns in the hunting a recreation industry. I thank my opponent for a good debate. When you go to vote after eading this just remeber the hypothetical i used earlier and think which one you would want in that situation. A can of pepper spray or a comperable weapon. I thank you all and urge a PRO ballot.
Automatic weapons should be legalized.

First off, I'd like to say that you are correct about the discussion getting off topic and I will be sure to stick to the resolution of automatic weapons being legal rather than all weapons. Your main argument relies on the supposed need to protect yourself against armed criminals. These criminals are getting weapons somehow, most likely buying them on the black market. This means that someone who has legally purchased a gun has had it stolen or sold it to the black market. If automatic weapons are legalized, would it not stand to reason that the theft of automatic weapons would become much more common, and thus, that they would be more available to criminals? Most burglars are not looking for confrontation and prefer not to attract attention. Not to mention that a gun in your home is just one more item that can be stolen (once again contributing to the black market). The propagation of weapons (especially automatic weapons) is not going to make anyone safer. The best way to keep automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals is through strong gun control.
Automatic weapons should be legalized.

My opponent's first statment was that if we were to ban cars, baseball bats, knifes, and rocks it would be an inconvienice while banning guns would be fine because they were desighned soley to harm people. However my opponent is wrong. Guns are also used in hunting and recreation. There are still places in America where people really greatly on hunting in order to eat. I argue that banning guns is quite an inconviniece. What are security guards and police officers supposed to use if guns are illegal? But we have gotten off topic with this "Whether or not guns should be made illegal" debate. The resolution is wether automatic weapons should be legalized or not. If criminals have and use automatic weapons "good" citizens should be able to have them for what ever reason. Even if we did allow "good" citizens to have them the crime rate wouldn't go up becuase "good" citizens" wouldn't use them to commit crimes. This brings me to my opponent's second statement: "I don't think I will be robbed anytime soon. " It's impossible to predict future events however it is still possible and even if it does not happen to you specifically it could happen to soemone else and the question would present itself: An armed man eneters your house. Which would you preffer to confront him with? A can of pepper spray or an equally powered weapon, an automatic weapon?
Automatic weapons should be legalized.

I would argue for the illegality of all weapons because the only purpose they serve is to kill and harm. As for the other objects you mentioned - "cars, knifes, baseball bats, heavy objects, and rocks" - these objects all have a purpose for which they were created that does not involve harming others. If we were to make them illegal, it would cause much inconvenience and difficulty in people's lives whereas the illegality of guns actually makes people safer. Your other point is really nothing more than paranoid hyperbole. I cannot see an open fire fight with automatic weapons happening in your home any time soon. Even if you do have an intruder in your home, most buglers can be scared off by your very presence or a cheap security alarm (if this is really the sort of thing that confuses you).
Automatic weapons should be legalized.

If your arguement is that guns are desighned to hurt every one but the user and we should there fore ban them you are also arguing to be just about every other weapon including all other types of guns. You also said we have hand guns isn't that enough. I'll let you and the commenters pick: A man is breaking into your house. He has an automatic weapon. What would you preffer to confront him with. A handgun or an equally powered weapon. We must remeber, guns don't commit crimes. Bad people commit crimes and guns are only a medium used to do so. If we where going to ban guns/keep certain ones illegal to prevent crime, then we should also ban cars, knifes, baseball bats, heavy objects, and rocks becuase these things can also be used to kill.
Automatic weapons should be legalized.

When it comes to illegality, the main question that should be considered is: does this have the potential to harm anyone OTHER than the individual using it. In other words, is this a victim-less crime? When it comes to matters such as marijuana or prostitution (tangents I'd prefer not to get into, I'm merely using them to illustrate a point) there is a potential for harm, but only to the people using marijuana or practicing prostitution. The right to inflict harm upon yourself is one that I will vouch for, as it is a personal choice. Weapons, on the other hand, have the potential for harm beyond just the people using them. In fact, they are designed specifically to harm anyone but the person using them. This now puts individuals with no willing association with the subject in question in danger. It's true that people kill people but, frankly, (to refute this old clichï¿½) they use guns to do it. This is why we should take all steps possible to keep guns out of everyone's hands; criminals and civilians alike (though shooting someone has the potential to make you a criminal, doesn't it?). It is absolutely ridiculous that you would need an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Even within the current context of handguns being legal, surely that's enough? In the kind of situation where one might need to use a weapon (and such situations are few and isolated), would you not want to minimize the amount of gunfire?
Automatic weapons should be legalized.

Resolved: Automatic Weapons should be legalized. I am a firm beliver that they should and will be taking the Pro side. First lets look at why they are currently illegal. Automatic weapons are illegal becuase of the fear that criminals will get a hold of them and use them for criminal causes. I cocncur that this is a lagitamite fear however, what has it done? Criminals still have and use these weapons and the only thing keeping them illegal has done is prevented good citizens from ownig them for self deffense purposes. I thank you for reading and urge a Pro ballot!
Steroid users should be allowed in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Resolution: As Pro I will show why the National Baseball Hall of Fame should take a strong stance that Hall of Fame voters may not vote against a players induction into the hall of fame based solely on steroid use. Con must show why it is justified for steroid users to be denied a Hall of Fame vote. Steroids: Includes all banned substances recognized as performance enhancing drugs. (Steroids just sounds so much more controversial)National Hall of Fame: located at 25 Main Street, Cooperstown, NY 13326. http://baseballhall.org... Challenger: Please be serious. No semantics. Rules: Standard debate rules apply.
Sabre vs Katana

I accept. The Japanese are known for being great warriors. And they make great weapons to match. The katana is made of steel, and instead of being made of one single sheet of metal, it is several layers of thin metal wrapped around one another to make it strong and durable. The katana is usually held by the samurai who has trained with the weapon his whole life, while the saber is held by officers, who only had it since they were in their position. When historians think of the katana they think of a man being cut in half like butter with a knife. The other thing is that the katana is a slashing weapon and a stabbing weapon as well, which could be the advantage in a battle. ( also when you say saber do you mean the British straight sword that officers hold, or the US curved sword that Calvary held into battle)
Sabre vs Katana

Hello! In this debate, I will be arguing that the western sabre is a superior blade design to the Japanese Katana for dueling. Con will be arguing the opposite. The rules are as follows:-Round one is for acceptance only. Round two is for arguments, three is for arguments/rebuttals, and four is for rebuttals. No new arguments may be introduced in the final round.-The BoP is shared. Con may not argue that neither weapon holds an advantage.-The hypothetical situation is that of a duel in which both combatants are well trained, and are equally experienced in their respective martial arts. Neither has any physical advantage, and both are unarmored and armed only with their respective blade. The area in which they are dueling is open, flat, and devoid of any other environmental factors that could influence the outcome. The fight is to the death.-Arguments must only reference the blade design, or the techniques/martial art used with the blade.-Both pro and con may choose a specific blade type that falls under the respective categories of "sabre" (pro) and "katana" (con). Con may not use another variety of nihonto, and Pro may not use another variety of European blade.Violation of the rules will result in a seven point forfeiture. Good luck to whomever accepts the debate! I look forward to seeing what arguments are brought to the table xD.
The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.

Since I've covered most of my points already I'll refute my opponents claims that mine are invalid then touch on some additional points: To begin my opponent claims I am incorrect that a shootout breakaway mimics a real life situation. He states that they have all day and go side to side. However, players usually start fairly quickly and only briefly slow for a move. If you care to take the time here is a shootout highlight video to view, entitled "Top 10 NHL Shootout Goals Ever Seen" {3} This video proves two of my points I stated in my previous argument. One, players do not just go side to side in all of these they go forward at a fairly quick pace. This is because the NHL rules state "Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent"s goal line and once it is shot the play shall be considered complete." {4). Since you cannot stop forward momentum you cannot simply sift lazily from side to side, and this video shows this does not occur in the NHL like my opponent stated it does. Additionally, this video proves that the shootout creates excitement because the fans (provided its a home game) go crazy because these kinds of 1-on-1 battles create tension like my opponent said but with tension comes tremendous adrenaline and excitement; especially for the winner. So thank you, pensfan, for proving my point. Also, to briefly touch on the claim that the poll I provided does not matter, it does. While they may be retired nothing about the shootout has changed since then it was merely ten years ago. So why does their opinion not hold any water? Additionally, he stated: [and I'm paraphrasing] that because they are retired the opinions must have changed. Well, unlike my opponent I provided statistical proof that the opinion I am defending is a majority in the NHL. My opponent provided no proof that the opinion is different now, and unfortunately for him will have no chance to do so seeing as this is the last round. So to conclude and briefly add to my ultimate claim, the shootout should not be removed because it does create excitement regardless of the nature of said excitement, prevents risk of further exhaustion or injury [which is a topic my opponent never touched on], and is a fair way to break a tie in a timely fashion. Additionally, like penalty shootouts in soccer and the strange overtime rules in football, they may not be liked by everyone but they are traditional parts of the game and the NHL shootout has no major errors that make it worthy of removal. Vote CON. Additional Sources; {3} Video of Shootout; link listed above {4} http://www.usahockeyrulebook.com...