BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Colonizing space

As the Pro has Neglected to contest any of my previous arguments I ask the voters to Please extend all my arguments to this round as well, Please take note of the main points: A. Population: Population growth does not equal extinction-to many variables. B. Economy: Economic problems are cyclical,Empiric prove - Bad investments are the only thing that causes long term issues. C. Nuclear war: Nuclear war is not inevitable. History proves it. D. Asteroids: Not a threat to us, but rather to outer space colonies. E. Global warming: Global warming is good and not human caused. F. Tech fails, years away. Any questions about these points, please refer to the argument above where they are explained more thoroughly. The Con should win for proving the Pros proposal to be wrong and impractical. -p.s the sources are in the comment section, sorry guys :P
All Anime and Manga products should be banned in the United States

I will be arguing that Anime & Manga should not be banned from the US. DefinitionsMy opponent has not given any defintions. I will state them here in this round prior to the debateMy opponent has the BoP. He needs to provide adequate reason why anime and manga should be banned from the United States. If he is unable to provide enough reason and is unable to persuade you to vote Pro, you must vote Con. Therefore, I do not have to prove that anime and manga should not be banned, rather, my opponent needs to prove his point to win.1. Anime: A style of animation originating in Japan that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes. [1]2. Manga: A Japanese comic book or graphic novel [2]3. Banned: To prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: [3]Good luck and I hope we have a good debate. Sources[1]: . https://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]: . https://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]: . http://www.dictionary.com...
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) should be banned

Wow, well done, been a while since i had to pull research.R1- According to the National Canine Research Council "Dog bite statistics include a range of types of Dog bites. The vast majority.... they fail to accurately show which dogs bite, why dogs bite, or just how frequently leaner irresponsible allow their dogs to become a problem to people or other animals. The point is that if a dog jumps and scratches a person, that can be reported as a dog bite. There is no standard nationally used in the reporting of what actually is a dog bite. The NCRC further states that bite totals become even more misleading when subdivided by breed descriptors. At least half of the dogs in the United States are mixed breed dogs.With the exception of breeders, most dogs today are mixed breed and in fact most people can not accurately identify a pit bull. (1)R2- According to multiple sites, the pit bull has an 84% passing rate on temperament testing as compared to 77% for all other breeds. The reason is simple, it is the Pit's bedding, the dog is bred to please its owner. It is loyal and passionate to its owners wishes, which is also it's biggest fault. Because it wants to please, it will fight and protect the owner.The most decorated military dog in the United States history was a WWI Pit Bull named Stubby. Not only did stubby receive military honors he was made a lifetime member of the American Legion (2) The role of government could be debated as to what protection is however the banning of a breed is not the answer. I would suggest that all owners would be required to take a course to become licensed to own dogs. If you consider you must have a license to drive, get married hunt why not to own a dog? As the owner of a Pit Bull and a Rottweiler, both these dogs are CGC, and Therapy dogs. These dogs are well socialized and are well treated. Any dog will bite if pushed to it's bite threshold.I would appreciate a vote for pro stand up against BSL, a dog should be judged by its life not the fear of society.Sources(1) www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com (2) www.neatorama.com
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) should be banned

Numerous states and local governments have enacted breed-specific legislation to ban the ownership of certain types of dogs or provide restrictions on the conditions of ownership. The purpose of this legislation is to protect public safety by controlling ownership of potentially dangerous breeds of dog. Certain types of dogs, such as the pitbull or rottweiler, have a natural temperament toward aggression. Without proper training and socialization, this temperament can become a problem and cause these animals to pose a threat to public safety. If all dog owners took appropriate care to train and socialize their dogs, breed-specific legislation would not be required, but because many owners do not undertake these efforts, the government must step in to ensure public safety. Danger of pitbulls, rottweilers, and related breeds Despite that pitbulls and rottweillers represent only a small percentage of dogs, in the U.S. and Canada they account for 77% of all dog attacks that induce bodily harm, 73% of dog attacks to children, 81% of dog attacks to adults, 68% of dog attacks that result in death, and 76% of dog attacks that result in maiming.[1] These attacks vastly outnumber the attacks by other breeds of dogs.[2] Certainly these dogs could be safe to own if properly trained, but many owners do not correctly train their dogs, and these dogs then become a public safety concern. Government’s job is to protect its citizens It is well within the purview of the government to protect its citizens through legislation. When the evidence supports that certain breeds of dogs present a public safety risk, it is within the government’s power to enact laws that will control the ownership of these breeds – whether through bans or restrictions. Many governments also have bans on other types of animals that present public safety risks, either because of risk for attack or disease – such as certain reptiles, monkeys, large cats, and various species of “wild” animals. Some of these individual animals might be safe, but as a whole they are not. It is the government’s job to recognize that a specific type of animal poses a generalized risk and protect against that risk. Conclusion Perhaps, in the future, there will come a time when dog owners properly train and socialize their dogs, preventing them from becoming a public safety risk. But, that time has not yet arrived. At the present, many of these types of dogs are dangerous, and the government’s job is to protect its citizens from danger. These governments have chosen to enact legislation that will limit or control these dogs, a completely reasonable and acceptable method of reducing this public safety risk. Sources [1] http://www.dogsbite.org... [2] http://www.dogsbite.org...
Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) should be banned

Across the United States there is a trend that local governments, normally city or sometimes counties whereby they will prevent the ownership of certain types of dogs, most notably the "pit bull " breed. As a pretty conservative follow I am morally outraged at the governments interference in the peaceful ownership of a companion animal. The folks out there who support this type of interference will normally cite all types of tragic news reports, but they have never met one. There recently was a world wide case that took place in Belfast Ireland, Lennox was a dog that was euthanized because he 'looked' like a pit bull. The police came in literally took the dog without a provocative in incident, had a trial killed the dog and never let the family in to see him. For any government to do this is wrong, granted that happened in Ireland, however the same laws exist here in the U.S.. If a dog is to be euthanized it should be for health reasons or for an actual event, not a possible event which may or may not happen in the future. For that reason alone BSL should be abolished.www.savelennox.comwww.telegraph.co.uk
The Democratic Party has moved to the left because of Bernie Sanders

"Any sursory investigation of American history will show that the united states has had a resistance to socialist ideals, Till now" You haven't provided any evidence for this assertion. Any 'cursory' look would show American history isn't that easily reduced. Socialism in the United States can be traced all the way back into the 19th century. [1] "DANGER? What you mean like in Denamrk or Norway/ that kind of danger? " Yes, Marxism is a 'DANGER, ' contrary to what you may believe. This isn't relevant to the subject of Bernie himself unless you're willing to admit he's a communist. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. If we take Bernie Sanders at his WORD he is a Democratic Socialist. This is vastly different from the Nordic model in crucial ways, The Nordic model incorporates a largely free market to afford its expansive welfare system. The general Norwegian economic model is more capitalist than the United States. [2] Wikipedia isn't a viable source, But it hardly matters considering pro cited nothing himself. [1] https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States [2] https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Nordic_model
The Democratic Party has moved to the left because of Bernie Sanders

It is real simple, The democrats didn't move left because of Bernie. Rebuttal "1) Bernie supported social democratic/democratic socialist polcies long bfore they became vogue" The burden of proof lies on yourself, Simply stating this isn't a sufficient argument. Democratic Socialism was an idea long before Bernie Sanders; in-fact, I would postulate the democratic party has been swaying into extremism for the better part of 60 years. "2) Now everyone has jumped on a train he created i hate to make a post hoc ergo proctor hoc argument but in this case the man made the times, One man moved the Centrist Democratic party" He did not 'create the train, ' or the enthusiasm for socialism. The American left has been playing it's claws at this type redistributionism for a long time. Marxist philosophy specifically has been a creeping danger since the early 60s.
DetectableNinja's Tournament: Sex offenders should be sterilized/chemically castrated.

Sorry about the previous mistake in the set-up. Everything should be fine now. Good luck.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Final Rebuttal/Closing StatementSex Offender (1): an individual who was convicted of a sex offense.We will be using the list of sex offenses and relevant definitions provided by the above source.Sterilized/Chemically Castrated: The ongoing regular injections of anti-androgens in order to achieve the effect of temporary sterilization.---Sources---1. http://www.law.cornell.edu...
DetectableNinja's Tournament: Sex offenders should be sterilized/chemically castrated.

Between not having much time to commit to this final round and the fact that the final round is meant to be a conclusion, I will keep this short. My opponent's only response to my theory is an attempt to drop the evidence in question. I stated last round under my fairness voter that "My opponent cannot simply drop his misrepresented evidence and solve for this as I won't be able to adapt my strategy of debate to honest evidence until the final round of debate where I am unable to make new arguments. Once the abuse has occurred in-round, an objective evaluation of the round becomes impossible and you must vote against my opponent because his abuse has caused that. "No matter whether or not it was a mistake, I am unable to refute his case at this point and had to focus on the lack of accuracy/academic integrity in the argument that my opponent posted. My opponent failed to refute that the original lack of accuracy is sufficient to drop him from the round. He has not refuted any parts of my theory shell. Extend it clearly and I should win right there.
The Idea for a unified world governemt is not a feasible possibility at the current moment.

I would disagree... The only way for any country to achive union with another, is by an agreement by both sides leaders... Simple philosopy and politics. But it is not FEASABLE because people will not give up their power once they achieve it, now yes there are some exceptions, but the rule, unfortunate as it is, is that when someone achieves their power they sparingly choose to relinquish it. So while the idea is DREAMABLE it is not Feasable.
The Idea for a unified world governemt is not a feasible possibility at the current moment.

A real world government is ALSO feasible. The issue is would the subjective emotions of the individual leaders we appoint to represent nations in the world-wide state not influence them to engage in wars? I think that this is the reason for different states (meaning separate government controlled nations) in the first place. If we make sure there are no feuds it could happen. You are literally saying something that is possible is impossible. Very foolish.
The Idea for a unified world governemt is not a feasible possibility at the current moment.

Now to the actual debate. I would prefer if my opponent would stay within reason, and if possible cite at least one credible source with most of their contentions, or whatever points they make, and i will do the same. Again, this is just a debate to satisfy my own curiosity of seeing something on my mind from a different point of view. No government will ever give up war, for the simple reason that it will lose all its power over the people. A government is designed to protect its people from threats, both foreign and abroad; in fact most countries have their officials swear as such, in one way or the other. But if the world was to follow the same leadership, the governements lose all but a fragment of its power. This obviously is not a realistic point of view for 1 simple reason. 1) Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrups Absolutely. Lord Acton had it right with the quote i just used. We see it all the time in the news, When we, the people elect, or give power to a single person, they use that power for their own use in the end. From the begining of time Empire have risen and fallen following this principle. The Chinese Dynasties all followed the same pattern, The first ruler under the monarchy was chosen for their self-sacrifice, leadership, and for putting the people's needs above their own. However as time went on, all those qualities pulled a 180 and became instead qualities of Selfishness, greed, and Corruption. This pattern showed up over and over throughout history, from Eqypt, to Rome, and even to the British Crown. This pattern has shown up time and time again, over and over, and yet the people of the world never tried to stop it, or come up with a system that rose above the failures so commonly characterized by the human race. In a perfect world, A Unified World Government is a perfect solution. But if the Human history has taught us one single thing, its that this is not a perfect world. This is the crux of my point of view, so for this single reason, the world is forced to stay apart. So i hope you, the neg can help me see the other side and i look forward to your argument(s)
It is possible to draw a four-sided triangle

Before you disagree with me and go with the more obvious answer, consider my debate. In order to make a triangle you need four lines. The definition of a line is; A geometrical object that is straight, infinitely long and infinitely thin. (http://www.mathopenref.com...) A line is infinitely thin, impossible to see, in theory it is not there. Therefore it is both possible and impossible to make a four sided triangle, but it is more possible than impossible.
Healthcare and Education (Kindergarten - College) should be free

Hi there! First I'd like to say thank you for accepting and secondly I'd like to apologize for taking so long to post my first round: 1. Common sense Before showing a bunch of statistics, I'd like to use some common sense: I suppose that we both agree, that if you're sick your body won't allow you to work, and that without education, the chances that you'll find a decent job are rather slim. Now let's consider the fact that a lot people (especially in the US) don't have enough money for healthcare and/or higher education. Finally, it should be quiet obvious that without healthcare you're gonna get sick sooner or later and that without higher education you'll have a hard time finding a job. So, since many poor (and middle class) people can't afford the tools to work, isn't it obvious that these tools should be provided for them for free? In this year's State of the Union address, President Obama, said: "Within a decade, 2/3 jobs will require some form of higher education" But I also mentioned Kindergarten. I admit that it's not a tool that will help YOU find a job, but it might help your parents. Consider the fact that most families nowadays need both parents working if they want to live. But they can't just leave their baby at home, right? So this should (IMHO) lead to the conclusion that both healthcare and education (kindergarten to college) should be free. Of course this would raise taxes for some people (mainly the rich), but it would be a fair redistribution from top to bottom. 2. Stats'n'facts When comparing the healthcare systems of many industrialized nations, the US (without universal healthcare) is dead last. But when looking at nations with universal healthcare, you'll see that their the leading countries: http://www.who.int... http://en.wikipedia.org... We get similar results when comparing the educational systems in the world. The US' ranking is mediocre when compared to Finland, a country that offers it's students free university and generous student loans: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... In the OECD pisa studies, the US' ranking is pretty low. According to the OECD and the video below, this is mainly due to the high child poverty rates in America. In fact, when comparing the US' results from wealthier schools, America is even better than Finland, but the results from poorer schools (the majority) are only comparable to the poorest OECD countries: http://www.oecd.org... 3. Anecdotes In a discussion forum on reddit, poor people had to tell what they experienced, that a wealthier person wouldn't. Sad to say that in the "land of the free and of the brave" some people were so desperately poor that when they had a bacterial infection, they'd go and see if some farmers were willing to give them antibiotics, normally used for cattle... https://www.tytnetwork.com...
Male is better than female

Yes, Emotional intelligence is important in leadership. So, Let's talk about women dealing with emotions first. Emotional intelligence has four parts: self-awareness, Managing our emotions, Empathy, And social skill. There are many tests of emotional intelligence, And most seem to show that women tend to have an edge over men when it comes to these basic skills for a successful life. That may matter more than ever in the workplace. Most women are quite social, Which helps them to be a great communicator, And leads to success. They are good at social science, Such as using languages too. Females are better when it comes to dealing with people. Except for their EI, They are good at understanding and caring about others more, Most of the time even better than males. Although males often have excellent abilities for analyzing, Organizing, And remembering technical information, They get worse abilities for communication, Expressing emotions, And understanding the emotional and communicative expressions of others. It's clear that in many cases like sales, You first need to communicate with others to get their attention before introducing the product. Males have worse abilities in communication, So they might find it difficult to start the topic. , But females are the opposite. They can also think about the customers' needs and feelings to depend on how and what they should say. My opinion is: Females have same or more possibility to succeed compared to males. What do you think?
Male is better than female

Leadership requires two major characteristics; A) knowing how to manage success but more importantly failure and B) explarotary nature. Now, There is a personality trait known as 'neuroticism' which is feeling negative emotion, Anexity, Stress. Statistically women are prone to anexity and stress and getting affected in a negative way by uncertanities more. As a leader if you fail in your project almost all responsibility of failure is going to be yours. Failure is an undesired uncertainty. If the leader happens to be a woman and project fails then situation is going to be way more harder for the woman emotionally because uncertainties tend to afftect them more. And this personality trait 'neuroticism' also ceases the explarotary nature because something unexpected destabilizes the state of mind. That is why you also statistically see far less number of female leaders than male leaders
Male is better than female

The statement 'male is better than female' can be encountered in many ways. For example, In early times when primates started to live on land, Males used to hunt and gather resources and females were caretakers and used to feed children and other members of the family. So, In the course of evolution hunters were predominantly male. This leads to the first point of comparison in the criteria of physical strength that usually 'male is better than female'. Now, As males used to travel large distances in search of food and resources they developed a better sense of direction. So, If you compare both genders in their ability to sense direction usually ' male is better than female'. Your statement "Male and Female are the same. Genders do not divide ability. I believe that the probability of success for both genders is the same " is absurd because you cannot talk about chances of success for women and men unless you precisely put forth on what grounds you want the comparison. There are differences between both genders both socially and biologically and that creates differences in their abilities in different fields. One more thing I want to mention, 'male is better than female' is quite a poorly stated topic because it does not tell what the debate is all about. You should specify what do you mean by 'better'? . 'Better' can be taken as more efficient or more good looking or better dancer. 'Better' word compares two entity of a class for a particular trait and hence it would be inconsistent if you do not mention the criteria for comparison.
animal rights

What proposition brings you is the two routes this debate can take, do animals intrinsically have rights and if so what rights can those be. Taking the opposition case I will prove that animals can never have rights. This is actually a very simple idea. Humans have rights because we can give our consent to respect the rights of others, ie the social contract. Animals can never form this type of contract with us as they have no ways of fully understanding that they must respect our rights in order for us to respect theirs. If they can never fully respect our rights we can never respect theirs. No contract in this level can ever be formed. Rights are a human invention to maintain a society and animals do not partake in this society and cannot give consent therefore they cannot have rights.
Should Vending Machines Be Allowed In Schools

I am making this debate for a particular friend who I would like to debate if vending machines should be in schools. I have only two rules. One: No Insults/Personal Offenses. Two: Let the first round be only to establish the rules and let my opponent accept the debate. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th will be used as a three round debate. I hand this over to my opponent.