BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Keeping fish in bowls is inhumane

Your saying that water quality is the same In bowls and aquarium. Aquariums are built with a filter and in the filter is carbon, bacteria lives in the filer helps clean the water and fight disese that could harm the fish. Do you know what tank sizes are? We should know that the inch per gallon rule is stupid. Goldfish are common bowl fish, their sizes range up to 8-30 inches, even thoughts feeders! An average tank size of a goldfish is 20 gallons. Bettas are also common bowl fish they said to live in shallow rice puddles in SE Asia, that Is 100% untrue! And how do I know? I breed them. Bettas grow up to 3-4 inches and need five gallons with a filter and a heater. Do you always wonder why your new fish only lived 3 days? Probably because it was stuck in a bowl. In pets tired goldfish are sold in clean filtered enviroments. Goldfish are more dirty than the SA cichlid oscar and will produce a lot of waste and the ammonia will rise and it will die a painful sad death. But if you get a betta the fish will be used to the high ammonia because it was sold in a tiny cup at the store. Without exersise the betta will become bloated, then in a week the water will have a layer of waste on the surface and will suffocate the fish he will die painfully because you were to cheap to buy a five gallon fish tank. I've been keeping fish ever since I was five, I currently own ten tanks plus I breed bettas and my information comes from other hobbyist or my current experience.
Keeping fish in bowls is inhumane

Inhumane to keep fish in bowls??? Where else would we put them?? Tanks are exactly the same!! Besides, they could be dying in normal water because of such of our pollution, as shown in http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov..., our pollution is terrible! As impossible as it might seem, our normal bowls with only a few drops of cleaning-water liquid in them, are actually cleaner! Especially people who keep water filters and like to keep their fish healthy, so in conclusion, keeping fish in bowls is humane, and the other way around is actually inhumane. This concludes my argument for round one.
Without God, our lives lack any ultimate objective purpose, meaning, or value.

Essentially, you argue that because everything that lives will die, and if there is not an afterlife, that would require all actions be completely meaningless. I will offer two separate arguments that prove that wrong:Meaning In Life Can Only Have Value If It Is Limited:Life is made up of many moments. As ever human only has a specific amount of them, living anywhere from around 0-100 years, those moments can be precious. However, the more moments you have, the less precious they can be. Moments can be like diamonds. Having a few diamonds would be nice, as they would have lots of value. But, if you had an unlimited amount of diamonds, the value of each would be basically nothing. So, if humans have a limited time on earth, to live the lives they want to live, then that is real value, as they have to make the most of that time. However, if there is an afterlife, where people will leave for eternity, then their lives would become meaningless. If you live forever, you cannot have any goals; you have no deadlines; you have no fears. I mean, truly imagine what existence would even mean in a spirtual world like "heaven. " What would be the point of life? You're immortal, there is no evil at all, only good. What would you do for eternity? How would you keep from becoming bored? How would you pass the time? Is the point of heaven just for pleasure; for fun? How is that a meaningful value? People Might Be Able to Live Forever:If my opponent disagrees with my first argument, we need not assume that immortality is something that can only exist in a "spiritual realm. " As we have recently sequenced the genetic code, and as science continues to improve, it may become possible that we discover methods in which to prolong human life, maybe even indefinitely. Even if we can't prolong human life, we may be able to clone humans. When one version of us dies, we could clone that person, and they could live their life all over again, except with entirely new environments and circumstances. As for the universe eventually dying, that is definitely true, but there may be multiple universes out there. Humans may discover methods in which to travel to other universes, and if those universes are endless, then there is no issue with humans continuing to live on, alternating between universes when needed.
Without God, our lives lack any ultimate objective purpose, meaning, or value.

No kritiks,No ad hominemI am not saying that people cannot have a subjective illusion of purpose without God. Nor am I saying that atheists are necessarily bad or boring people. What I am defending is that if God does not exist, life has no ultimate objective meaning, value, or purpose. Humanity is irrevocably doomed to die in the cold void of the heat death thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. We could maybe make it out of the galaxy, we could at best escape the death of our sun, but we can't escape the 2nd law. The struggles of the doctor, the scientist, and the humanitarian, all end the same: in nothing but cold oblivion.
All store should stop selling drugs.

Actually, I do know what you have gone through. When I was in elementary to high school my father had a drinking problem as well, so don't tell me to shut up. Also personal experiences are irrelevant in debates, so you talking about your father has no value in this debate. And, no, I do not want all the drug stores to close down. Do you know how many sick people there would be if all the pharmacies shut down? Also, you say you only want drug stores to be shut down because of your father and his alchohol problem, why not just shut down all of the liqour stores? I could see you wanting that, but not pharmacies. I think that you are a little confused on what you want. One last thing, pharmacies are very convinient. I can't tell you how many times I've been out of town and need to get some sort of thing that gas stations either just don't have, or the gas stations have them over priced. Let's say you're out of town and need to get some milk, but the nearest grocery store is five miles outside of town. As you're going through town, you spot a Wal-Greens. Boom, job done. Instead of having to go five miles away, you can go half a mile, and be at a Wal-Greens. Now, imagine if all of them were shut down. You would have to drive five miles outside of town, which would, one, be wasting your time, and two, be wating gas. The more gas you use, the worse our atmosphere get's. So really, if you shut down all of the pharmacies, in some cases you would be hurting mother earth. Back to you pro.
All store should stop selling drugs.

When you say audited, I assume you mean addicted. Yes, why it is true people could get addicted to drugs, that has nothing to do with why stores should selling drugs. Also, you refer to beer as a drug, when in fact beer is not a drug, it is a substance. Yes, there may be some corrupt stores selling illegal drugs, but you can't really help that unless you close the store down entirely, which would have far more consequences than benefits. I wish I had more to argue against, but my opponent has given me no solid facts as of why drugs should stop being sold in stores. I honestly can't tell if this is a troll debate, or pro has no idea what they are talking about.
All store should stop selling drugs.

Well now, you are saying that stores should stop others from taking eachothers medicine. Does that mean that you no longer think that stores should stop selling drugs? Because if it does mean that, then I won. And you say that they should stop people from taking eachothers drugs, well, the stores can't control that. They tell you not to do it, but it's not like stores have cameras in everyones house. Someone could have perscription pain meds and then they have a friend over. The friend over decides to take some of the pain meds, even thought they are not his. The drug stores cannot control what goes on in peoples houses, so they will never be able to stop people from taking each others meds.
DR H PTBTMSiWY WECAO

fam u aint not dabmaster, ima set u a fvcing dabplaster. why you running away like Cinderella for dho. you aint on job, go grab a book n il teach about the bible of da wolf. I know u still scared of the dark, you still wet ya bed like the bp oil spill. your brain just an oil spill boiiiiiiiiiiiiii
DR H PTBTMSiWY WECAO

boi you dont know how deep i can d a b b" and as for you you is a lil y'eggmaster who aint doin nothin but eatin plaster. im sicc of your garbage. you yaint do ball wack on this site you fumblin wumpus fool. I seein you on this garbage and you yaint dabb even once. YOu think you're a good dabbmaster? why dont you show me? i want you to hit a dab atleast 10 miles deep. untill then you can stop talking to me
DR H PTBTMSiWY WECAO

bruv, you aint got nuttin on the wolfy. everyone knows you take it up the butt like how beans fvck toast. yeh that's how much u play with dolls. You are new here, you aint on my level, I'm on cloud 10 bro, come at me, il though indian spinach and rice at you. i c u tryna act al hard with that popeye attitude. Like I said before, if man cant dab, then man cant do anything. k spastic, bet u cant dab.
DR H PTBTMSiWY WECAO

Boy tf is your wack-ballman talking about you sultry fool. Lemme break it down for you. You are a bussy (definition of bussy: a man who has completed shadow the hedgehog for the nintendo toaster-oven on hard difficulty) who knoweth not the glory of our god rad chad. " And then rad chad spoke out from the mountain saying, " Do not fear the dark my child, for i am a mad lad" (1st lad. 5:16 New living translation) " When you hear this profound wisdom, how still can you claim ignorance to rad chad's light? . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . also yuu suk pp
DR H PTBTMSiWY WECAO

Erh Well first of all, who da fuq is Rad Chad?????? Boi, it looks like you have cockinmouth syndrome, cos all you are is a piece of fvcked up gay halloumi cheese. Put a bit of pepper on it, and the day is as grey as your hair. Don't even get me started on your momma, she so ugly, the kung po duckling spat in her face. and then some...
DR H PTBTMSiWY WECAO

Nana na fam Aii how do you know my gran,?, dats too far my g. Man cant do that to man. Okokokok, I'm sorry I offended you. |God bless your soil, u da real king up in here... ONLY JOKING U FAGGOT YOU JUST A FVCKIN EGGMAN WANNABE FU U AINT MAD, U A FEBUARY SNOW FLAKE GOT NEWS FOR YA SON ITS MARCH, N IM A END LIKE KGBKKK, SO DONT TRY REACH MY CLOUD, U PONCE WOLFY OUT
Sunday Schools Should be Banned

As I have previously stated, despite the parents choosing to send their children to Sunday School, children are still free thinkers and will continue to hold their own ideas and beliefs. To stop the practice of religious ancestral continuation would be ludicrous. That would be infringing even more of American first amendment rights than the banning of sunday schools. Religion must remain free, just as most guns must stay legal and all speech free. The original pilgrims escaped England in search of religious freedom. Just as muslims and jews wouldn't be happy if a christian president passed a law stating that Christmas must be celebrated, despite religion held. There is a separation of church and state, so the state shall not infringe on the church's rights, and vice versa. All religions must be respected without hindering the rights of others. Only 22.8% (source: Pew Research Center) of US citizens are unaffiliated with any religion, which is a clear minority. Catholics are roughly 20% of the population, but it would be unconstitutional to pass a law mandating communion. Good luck!
Sunday Schools Should be Banned

Thank you for a rather well thought out rebuttal. In relation to your first point, Yes Sunday schools are option but it will be the parents making decisions for the children in the end while they are at such a young age. I would say that the vast majority of people who come from a family background of religion and church DO grow up to be theists so on that point obviously something is causing this. now I'm not saying Sunday school is THE problem but I believe it is certainly a contributor and example of indoctrination. I am personally unfamiliar with Sunday school having never attended myself though as a Hypnotist i know it dosnt take long for ideas to be planted, and one of the most powerful ways are stories/metaphors. And through a technique known as "seeding ideas" a relatively small idea can be built upon every week. add to that the law of successive approximations (Accepting 1 small thing makes it easier and easier to accept the next suggestion until you are accepting huge claims) i have no doubt that it will cultivate to have a profound impact on the child's perception when they do develop these critical thinking skills. And even in the children's school time they have the pledge of allegiance which mentions god, a perfect example of seeding ideas taking place. I believe religion and religious faith has a tremendous ability to stand in the way of scientific discovery, after all a faith based reality dose not ask questions (or at least significant scientific questions) as it promotes closed thinking based off what your book/superior has to say. Children are taught outdated principles such as no sex before marriage (outdated since we now know the significance of intercourse in bonding with and getting to know your S.O), in more extreme cases prejudice against gays and gay marriage. we cannot look to the ideal teachings of faith as in reality these ideals are not always held a candle to. I am not suggesting we shun religious followers in general, that would be a misrepresentation of my argument, I believe we should shun parents who think that because they believe, they should indoctrinate their children from a young age to (not to sound crude) quite a ridiculous belief that goes against everything we know in science and has been historically responsible for creating divisions among people. It is an obvious trend across the world that children believe what their taught to believe, i say it is wrong to teach children "facts" which are completely un-true, forcing upon them ideals that they may or may not have agreed to otherwise, threatening them (inadvertently perhaps) with the threat of hell and installing obedience based belief systems from a young age (which i will say adds to the current apathetic view that plagues America in particular today). Children Should not be presented, purposely, with biased information from a young age In an attempt to teach them the "truth" about the bible or any other set of disputed (un-truthful) ideas. See you in your closing statement :)
Sunday Schools Should be Banned

Of course Ethan! Sunday Schools are completely optional, and obviously not required. Even though parents might like their children to be exposed the the religion from an early age, this does not necessarily mean that the child will strictly listen to and believe in the practices. I experienced Sunday school first-hand, going to a Sunday school from age 5-9, however I am not religious in any way. Sunday school is less of a brainwashing technique and more of an exposition of the religion's culture. Most religions have this, whether it be part of the school curriculum of the country it originates from or a church group that continues until the teens. Due to the short time of Sunday school (1-2 hours during one day of the week), children are still free to create their own thoughts. The only time brainwashing is present is when Sunday school takes place on other days of the week and the child's own ideas are quashed while they are being formed. Despite some aspects of religion being bad, most religions offer good teachings. For example, the 10 commandments, "Honour thy father and thy mother" "Thou shalt not kill" "Thou shalt not steal" are all doctrines that if were strictly followed, the world would be a lot better. If anything, the "brainwashing" is for the better. Yes, the children are introduced to the Bible or other Holy Books with the books being "truth", however to the people who run the school and the parents of the children, it is truth. Most children don't grasp the concept of atheism or even god until a later age. Children are free thinkers but also mimic the actions of those around them. You probably have some of your parents mannerisms. They didn't brainwash you to clear your throat before addressing somebody or to cover your mouth when you laugh, you simply did what you saw them doing when you were a child, and these actions became second nature. While some may not follow a certain religion (or any for that matter), those who do believe should not be shunned as you state those who don't believe are. Banning Sunday Schools would be immoral and unconstitutional. Part of worshipping is teaching the children of the family the truths of the religion. Not all parents have time to teach the children the stories from a several hundred page book. I await your rebuttal.
Sunday Schools Should be Banned

Hello Kit! thank you for excepting this debate! :) Well I will begin. I will start by stating my point simply, Sunday Schools are just another form of indoctrination. At Sunday schools children are exposed to religious ideas and beliefs that their minds are not yet capable of defending against. Children under the age of 11 have yet to reach a strong level of critical thinking skills and are therefore being completely wronged by being sent to a school that enforces a particular belief onto them. Deep held beliefs are enforced upon to these children with many known Hypnotic techniques such as story telling and songs and generally exposure to true analysis of opposing thoughts/beliefs are blocked or even shammed. the result is a child internalizing a set of beliefs which can be incredibly hard to over come due to the psychological phenomena know as "cognitive dissonance" which is makes addressing deep held beliefs very difficult to do. Regardless of the parents beliefs, They should NOT be sending their kids to be programmed in this way. children should be helped to develop critical thinking skills, not have the snuffed away as they are sent to a (dare I say) "brainwashing camp". It is wrong It is immoral and the whole idea of Sunday school or "childhood indoctrination" should be left in the ancient times. I await your opening/rebuttal.
The National Security Agency's powers ought to be decreased and further regulated.

Unfortunately, my opponent (the negation/con) has not given any points or a case at all in this debate for the affirmative to refute. Therefore my opponent has no case to build upon. I would still like to encourage my opponent to post a refutation in this round of my case to at least keep this debate going, and then I would like to still end with a rebuild and summary statements in the fourth round. But, because my opponent has no case or points while the affirmative/pro has given points to this resolution, I urge you to vote in affirmation/pro of this debate. I am also looking forward to the negation/con's refutations within this round.
Pro bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys.

While my opponent continues to rest on the untestable, theoretical notion that forced pro bono work would dampen enthusiasm and cause attorneys to perform minimal for these clients, I have one more argument, and that is that not only is pro bono work a good thing it is also necessary in many places. Pubic defenders are paid for by the public. Not only would law firms requiring their attorneys to do pro bono work lessen the strain on these overworked and lowly paid officers of the court (Who are often so busy that they MUST perform minimal services), but it would also lessen the financial burden on the entire community, on the tax payers. What is constitutional is that accused persons have competent legal counsel. This may not be possible everywhere until we do mandate that attorneys give back to the community and court they are sworn to serve. Just saying that lawyers should give back is not enough. There are things about most peoples jobs they don't like to do, but it is important to their employers that they do, and it is important to the entire community, the taxpayers and the government that lawyers do pro bono work.
Pro bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys.

Hello, I plan to show that not only is mandatory pro bono work for lawyers constitutional, but also that it helps lawyers grow in their profession, (much has apprenticeships in other professions have done so for all time) and helps the community at large. Equal representation does not truly exist in our justice system because of the great expense a competent defense requires. Many lawyers share the belief that pro bono work is a good thing, as evidenced by the "Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge" launched in 1993, now operating out of the Pro Bono Institute at Georgetown, that challenges law firms to commit 3-5% of the firms billable hours to pro bono causes. The American bar proposed mandatory 40 hours a year pro bono work to service the poor and middle class who couldn't afford legal expense in 1977. It met so much opposition that membership to the ABA only included that "Lawyers should aspire to render ... pro bono publico services." Now places like Mississippi are once again are proposing mandatory amounts (20 hours). Requiring pro bono work is similar in other professions to Doctors having to do internships, or on the job experience training cosmetologist do, cutting hair for free. Since lawyers would be required to do free work only as a tiny part of their lucrative profession, it is not only moral but also constitutional. Lubet and Stewart from The University of Pennsylvania Law Review note that "public-assets pro bono programs clearly have the constitutionally permissible effect of requiring "all of the lawyers who derive benefit from the unique status of being among those admitted to practice before the courts [to] be called upon to pay a fair share of the cost of the professional involvement in this effort."" It is improper to consider those that cannot afford considerably expensive legal services as "indigent" since one does not have to be homeless to not be able to afford these services. It should be expected of law firms to give back to the community, and since legal services are considered monopolistic in this country (as only individuals licensed by the ABA may do so) it doe not detract from a capitalistic society, and little actual money would be lost from the firm or individual lawyers.
Pro bono work should not be mandatory for attorneys.

A few counties throughout the United States have made pro bono work mandatory for attorneys in their jurisdiction. No other service industry has mandatory free service provisions and instead focuses on the voluntary nature of providing services free of charge. Compelling attorneys to provide free legal service undermines the nobility of voluntary services, implicitly makes attorneys responsible and creates a duty to ensure indigent clients have legal representation regardless of the hours associated with the case, and deters from a capitalistic society. Con would have to show that mandatory pro bono provisions are constitutional regarding compelled work, in-line with other service providers, does impose a duty on attorneys to be responsible for the legal needs of the community as a whole, and does not deter from a capitalistic society.