BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We shouldn't bother saving the pandas.

Yes, they're incredibly cute and cuddly but that is NOT a valid reason for the zoo of Edinburgh to spend millions of pounds annually in keeping them alive... Especially, in this economic state. The truth is, all around the world, conservatives have become obsessed with keeping these Chinese species alive because they believe its only "natural". The fact is that these species were doomed from the very beginning and would have gone extinct ANYWAYS. We only have to analyze the nature of these bears to see why ; The male and female species live separately and are reluctant to breed. In addition, the females have a very narrow window to which they breed. Also, very few of their cubs survive to adulthood. All of this means that they have very low birth rate and evolutionarily, bound to go extinct eventually. Any good biologist can tell you that in the entire history of the early well over 99% of the species that have ever existed are extinct and that is regardless of OUR behavior. This also include the pandas who are clearly weak when it comes to survival of the fittest and fail in passing on their genetic information successfully. It is only NATURAL that they go extinct. So does it really make sense for us to waste so much of our valuable resources, money and time trying to "save" them when we could be using all of that on more worthwhile matters?
We shouldn't bother saving the pandas.

First of all, I would like to address the weakest argument that side opposition has put forth so far - That humans too have slow reproductive rates and hence we should save the pandas. Absolutely not. Us humans have innumerable other adapted features that makes us extremely dominant as a species... of these include - larger neocortex for better reasoning, capacity to form amazing models of our reality via consciousness, our flexible nature that allows us to adapt in many situations, our intelligence and the list is endless. My opponent's example simply does not apply and is only a result of flawed logic. In addition, there are numerous other reasons that the Pandas are a weak species that I have listed and side opposition has chosen to ignore. In my opinion, the numbers and statics presented are not impressive at all - especially when you look at them in the right context. Several trillion dollars spent to result to a mere 2000 members of a weak species?( for now, we can resolve that they are weak, considering side oppositions failure to prove otherwise) That does not sound like a very fit species to any respected biologist. Side oppositions explanation of why their diet is inefficient does not prove anything other than the fact that it is, indeed, inefficent. It does not aim to rebut one of the main weak points of the panda and in fact, defending side proposition. Opposition claims that it is economically viable to save the pandas without proving to us, through any logical explanation or example to why this is so. How is it more economically efficient than saving a rainforest? Is really worth spending trillions of dollars globally and annually on a single species that is in fact so weak?
We shouldn't bother saving the pandas.

Chris Packham does not seem to understand evolution on a basic level. He is, by the way, also in support of letting tigers die out because poaching has made them "worth more dead than alive." But at any rate, his claims that pandas are doomed is ridiculous. Raya is simply incorrect when she says that slow reproduction makes an animal weak. To use this example again, humans are one of the large mammals with the lowest reproductive rates year over year, and we are overrunning the planet. And pandas, in fact, have skyrocketing population figures. In the 1980's, the world panda population sat around 1,000. By 2005, that number was 1,600. In 21013, it's at least 2,200, and some surveys have placed the number closer to 3,000. http://wwf.panda.org... http://www.defenders.org... It is difficult to understand how a weak species that is utterly hopeless could have tripled its numbers in three decades. Now, to address the dietary concerns raised above, I'll state that every carnivore that has ever lived has gone through a period like the one that pandas are experiencing. They are transitioning from a meat diet to a vegetable diet. Of course it's inefficient. Every meat eater came from plant eaters and went through exactly the same process, though in reverse. This is an adaptation in progress, not a weakness. In addition, pandas are still perfectly capable of eating meat and eggs, and they do so in times of duress. Saving pandas is viable, both scientifically and economically. They are the vanguards of the conservation movement, and conservation is working to increase their numbers every year. They are endangered, not critically endangered or functionally extinct. They need help; they're not inevitably knocking at death's door.
We shouldn't bother saving the pandas.

I see that we are constantly having this clash of whether or not Pandas are fit as a species. The fact that they're not has been backed by evidence and even agreed with by many reputed naturalists and zoologists such as Chris Packam. Once again, here are just some of the many reasons why the Pandas are hopeless and must be left to their natural destiny of extinction : - Female pandas have "lazy ovaries" as the ovulate merely once a year and can handle only on set of offspring every two years. There is no clearer recipe for extinction. Yes, this feature, as side opposition has pointed out, is because of lack of interaction with predators but that doesn't make it any less negative feature. -Behavior wise, they have proven reluctant to breed and show very less interest in actually populating themselves. -In many cases, where they do receive a set of twins, they often actively let one of them die. -Their only food source, bamboo, is so hard for them to digest that they literally spend sixteen hours a day eating them. This is an extremely inefficient diet. I do believe that we should aim to safe and maintain biodiversity, but all the millions of dollars worth money spend on the pandas could be so much more effective if taken these points into account. I absolutely agree with the valuable emotional ways in which Bill Nye, Carl Sagan and many others have popularized science. But there is always and underlying educational and logical reason behind it that makes it worthwhile, both economically and in terms of the benefits it has for the general public. However, spending millions of pounds on a species only because its has emotional values attached to it is not worth it. There are definitely other ways that get the general public to appreciate and respect biodiversity without deluding them that they are making a difference simply because pandas are cute. We need to look at the bigger picture and stop focusing on a single species, especially when they are so weak.
We shouldn't bother saving the pandas.

It is not a scientific fact that pandas are hopeless as a species. Sure, they're susceptible to disease; however, no large mammal has yet been found that more commonly falls prey to communicable diseases than human beings, and we are doing fairly well. In addition, these are animals that have been successfully living off of bamboo since the earliest days of mammalian dominance of this planet. There are very, very few mammals that have proven as hearty and extinction-proof as the panda in the last tens of millions of years. Now they've run afoul of humans, their numbers have declined sharply. However, they've bounced back from much more catastrophic events than humans many times. Also, as http://phys.org... points out, humans have had their population bottleneck into the low thousands more than once, and we are now the most dominant predators on the planet. There is no reason pandas are doomed. When Pro says that an emotional decision is an illusion, she is simply dead wrong. Every major social movement uses powerful images and emotional appeals to attract support. From Paine's "The Summertime Soldier" for the American Revolution to the use of relatable and likable people lie Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, and Richard Feynman to promote popular scientific knowledge, people have always used likable mascots to attract attention. It's a valuable way to get more interest tn strictly factual appeals ever can. And, yes, saving rain forest would be a great use of resources. As I pointed out above, our love of pandas led to UNESCO declaring their habitat a world heritage site. This did two things. One, it helped to save many other species who live in those habitats. It also set a precedent for the declaring of other natural habitats as protected areas, and this has resulted in many tracts of rain forest being set aside in this way. http://whc.unesco.org...
Religion is Ridiculous

Religion is a bad influence on the human race. It has started violence time and time again. Also, religion doesn't give us morals. Morals are basic human instincts. Without morals, we would all be sociopaths. About 29.5% of America is nonreligious, atheist, or agnostic. Claiming that 29.5% of America are sociopaths would be preposterous! Thank you to whoever decides to debate with me.
Christianity is true

Jesus was not G-d for 2 reasons:1. G-d is not a man2. Jesus dfid not fit the description of G-d set up in the OTG-D IS NOT A MANThe Tanakh says in Numbers 23:19:“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?"Hosea 11:9 says:"I will not execute the fierceness of My anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim. For I am God, and not man, The Holy One in your midst; And I will not come with terror."JESUS DOES NOT FIT THE DESCRIPTION OF G-DIsaiah 40:28:"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary, and his understanding no one can fathom."Jesus, on the other hand, did grow tired, and his understanding we can fathom.
Christianity is true

I will be arguing for two positions on which Christianity stands or falls 1) the God of the Bible exists 2) Jesus was God In order to argue for the first point, I will use a proof for God's existence based upon the finitude of the universe. Everything that begins to exist, arises from a sufficient cause. The universe began to exist according to all empirical evidence, at a singularity known as the Big Bang. Since we have established that such things that begin to exist have causes, and that the universe began to exist, it follows trivially that the universe has a cause. You can summarize this line of reasoning as follows 1) everything that has a beginning to its existence, has a cause of its existence 2) the universe began to exist 3) therefore the universe has a cause Now we look at the ontological reality of this beginner of the universe. The beginner of the universe must be a thing of pure potential, since no limits can be imposed on the state of nothingness existent prior to the beginning of the universe. Such a being would have all the "omni" traits of the Abrahamic God of the Bible. It would also have to be conscious, as being outside time it would exist eternally, and since the universe is a finite effect, only a personal agent could affect such an effect, furthermore, it would be timeless and spaceless, sans the universe at any rate, as it would be outside space and time, and there are only two things that fit this paradigm, numbers or else an abstract mind. Since numbers can't call anything, this thing would have to be an abstract mind. Now the above argument only proves an Abrahamic God. My second argument will be based on Jesus' resurrection. I will use Bayes theorem to show that on balance, it is more likely than not that Jesus rose from the dead, thus fulfilling his Messianic claims. We have four facts that make the resurrection likely to have occurred; 1) many people saw Jesus after he died, separately and independently and unknowing of others' experiences 2) the witnesses of the risen Jesus were women, women at the time Jesus had lived were not regarded as reliable witnesses thus it is less likely that the Bible was lying about women witnessing Christ 3) Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin (Jewish court) therefore, his death must have been known by Jew and non-Jew alike. That means the disciples could not have gotten away with claiming his resurrection in Jerusalem, and no tractate of the Jews or other enemies of Christians at that time claim his body was still in his grave 4) the original disciples of Jesus all believed Jesus rose from the dead despite having every predisposition to the contrary. These were Jews who did not believe in resurrection, except on the day of judgment at the end of the world. The probability of Jesus resurrection on these historically contingent facts is very probable. Therefore, we should believe in the truth of Jesus. I we accept the first argument, we should also accept that the Abrahamic God exists.
Boxing and Football

The affirmative posits themselves as masters of the theatre of policy, able to create a new reality which more closely resembles the ideal form which makes their plan defensible. This drive towards purification and explanation, this will to truth, is an attempt to escape suffering and creative potential which negates life. Turanli 2k3 [aydan, “nietzsche and the later wittgenstein”, journal of nietzsche studies, issue 26, p. 61-2, muse] And, the 1ac’s political statements are justification for their pathos of reaction; the aff is a valorization of resistance to capture their boredom. Activism gives them a feeling of revolution while keeping everything the same. Nietzsche 1887 [Fredrich, “The Gay Science,” pg. 117-8] And, the alternative is to affirm destiny and chance. You should take the risk of exposing yourself to violent impacts, abandon the desire for mastery, and embrace the unknown and unfamiliar aspects of life by refusing to engage the 1ac. This risks danger but your mortality is something that is certain anyway. The alternative is the only way to live life eventfully and adventurously, through a rolling of the dice. Deleuze 83 [GILLES, “NIETZSCHE AND PHILOSOPHY”, PG. 25-27] And, the affirmative attempts to extend this negative concept of mastery to the whole event of existence to eradicate chaos. Against such an ordering, you should affirm the free spirit as a toying with this slavish framework of life. It is the only positive choice. Nietzsche 1873 [“On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”, pg 7]
Legalization of suicide

The government would certainly achieve a lot by legalization of suicide. There would be lesser paperwork for the police, more cops and resources free to catch actual criminals and decline of population which would result in lesser resource expenditure. And the media will not be able make so much publicity out of suicide. Personally I think those who want to suicide should join the army or something and die for a cause, but I think they avoid that because they are cowards. Since this is the conclusion, I hope you do not post any strong new rebuttal points. Good luck to Con.
The World is Flat

Con drops the curvature argument.I did not say 700 feet high I said 700 miles high. The math is here and you can check it your self. And no, water on a round earth would form an arc which we know is impossible, the flat earth water remains flat and consistent with everyday knowledge and common sense. https://youtu.be...Stars that are farther away would move differently than those closer to us, and the moon, but they don't, they move around us together in the firmament. https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...When the temperature I said the distance to the Sun determines the temperature sense the the poles are farther away from the Sun by a few thousand miles the temperature drops significantly. A greater angle is the same as a greater distance. If you do the math and take the distance from the equator to the poles and figure out the difference in temperature you can use this to go to the next planet and figure out what the temperature is supposed to be using this distance. It would be astronomical. The sun, on a flat earth is just closer to the equator. It is not just coincidence.Your math did not include the suns spiraling around the galaxy and the galaxies orbit around the center of the universe, add 670,561,000 mph to velocity, and try again.Your cognitive dissonance stops you from seeing that the Antarctic treaty is suspicious. However, the voters have that opinion to make now. Would circumnavigation be considered scientific research? Many people try to go there for scientific research, it's just not allowed, and the MILITARY stops them.There are several reasons they would hide it from us. #1 in my book is that it proves my other book is true, making it The most reliable source. Others can include treason, using $1 trillion of American taxpayer money to continue a lie. You've. http://christianchat.com...People coming out and saying it's flat, let's start with famous rapper b.o.b., tila tequila, this guy https://youtu.be... This guy https://youtu.be...This guy https://youtu.be...A few dozen You tube channelsPeople are just now waking up to this, so we haven't reached the 100th monkey yet(1), but 2016 is our year(2), mostly because a lot of people are smoking marijuana, which breaks the brainwashing process(3)Some people in NASA may not know much, you know they're on a need to know basis and all the ones that know about the hoaxes just think they're trying to keep America on top in space exploration and to keep that secret, they wouldn't even have to know about the shape of the earth.(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(2) https://www.google.com... (3) https://youtu.be...CircumnavigationYou do realize they're not flying completely around the earth, they fly from point to point in straight lines until they have circled the plateA lot of questions in that last paragraph. Last rounds don't usually consist of new topics, so I ask voters to understand why I won't evaluate with so little time. Lunar phases : https://youtu.be...Equinoxes https://youtu.be...Perspective https://youtu.be...
The World is Flat

I believe that the world is round. It has been proven throughout history and science. There are pictures from outer space confirming this. It is seen all over the internet and in text books. All the rules and discoveries of science revolve around the fact that the world is round. Equations for calculating movement in outer space is based on the fact that the earth is round. Although I have never actually been to outer space myself I think that the most reliable source of knowledge comes from the common knowledge of other people and astronauts. This is my first debate ever and I'm excited to participate on debate.org. I hope my opponent accepts my challenge. I am very curious about what he has to say on the matter.
Stanley Kubrick was the greatest film director of the later half of the 20th century

Pro states that his criteria for greatness is "how much someone has helped the cinema." He doesn't establish why we should accept that criteria as preeminent to opposing criteria. He doesn't establish that Kubrick has "helped" more than other directors, only alleging that he has helped to some degree, which would, even by Pro's criteria, only make Kubrick "great", but not "greatest". He alleges that Kubrick expanded the movie audience and "brought a more intellectual side to film making", but doesn't support these allegations with evidence, and still doesn't show why these should be accepted as objectively great. Pro's arguments come down to opinion, as he admits several times. Unfortunately for Pro, opinion is not enough to affirm the resolution. Pro needed to establish criteria for greatness in the debate setup, or establish objective criteria thereafter, but neither was done. The resolution remains unsupported. I have successfully negated Pro's case. Thanks, Pro. Thanks, voters.
Stanley Kubrick was the greatest film director of the later half of the 20th century

My criteria for greatness in this debate would be how much someone has helped the cinema. How I link what Kubrick did for film (transforming it) to greatness is that he has helped expand the movie going audience, and brought a more intellectual side to film making, which in my opinion is part of the reason why he is great, because it expands audience, which does more for the cinema. Also he another thing that made him a great filmmaker was how relentless he was at making a film. If you pay attention there is obsessive details to almost everything, form the acting to the character background to the lighting. Why is that great? Well in my opinion caring that much for something, and being well received at the same time is what I describe to be great. I would like to thank my opponent, who has provided an excellent challenge. Thank you. Also who do you consider the best film maker of the latter half of the 20th century?
Stanley Kubrick was the greatest film director of the later half of the 20th century

Pro's made several statements, but has not sufficiently linked those statements with the resolution. Pro hasn't established objective criteria for greatness. He lists some things that he believes make a director the greatest, but he's given us no reason to accept his beliefs as true. In both of his rounds, he even went so far as to admit that his claims are opinion. Why should we accept his opinion when determining criteria for greatness? What if I claimed that the opposites of Kubrick's qualities were what made a director great? My opinion would be as legitimate as Pro's, and neither would be real evidence. Pro says, "Stanley Kubrick...changed the structure of film..." Why does this make him great? Why should this even be considered good? What if I hate that he changed the structure? Pro says, "...he also transformed the way people were supposed to see films." Why should we consider this a good thing? Whether Kubrick "did more for film" or not, how does Pro link this to greatness?
Stanley Kubrick was the greatest film director of the later half of the 20th century

Welcome to DDO, Pro! In order to affirm the resolution, Pro must demonstrate that Stanley Kubrik was the greatest film director of the later 20th century. As Con, I must show that Pro's affirmation is insufficient. I will provide a definition that I think fits Pro's intentions. Greatest: superlative form of Great. Great: notable; remarkable; exceptionally outstanding.[1] [1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Resolved: Cats are more evil then Satan

Con has taken my quote out of context to distort it. If you read it in context, it says:"So Just because evil is subjective then that automatically means that Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Kim Jung Il arent evil? Thats complete bs.... Just because evil is subjective it doesnt mean that cats arent evil because then by that argument, NOTHING could be evilIt does not mean nothing could be evil, it just means that whether they are evil is affected by people's opinions, and opinions are not valid arguments."All his arguments fail because of jh1234l's argument from argument (argumentum ad argumentum)P1. jh1234l is right.C: jh1234l is right.Also, his accusations about me fail because of jh1234l's ad hominum razor:P1. Imabench is the son of a benchC. Imabench is wrong.P1 is right because imabench's last name is Bench [1], and therefore his parents' last names are likely also Bench.[1]http://www.debate.org...