BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Cruelty (Factory/Pet)

On the topic of animal cruelty I think personally it is wrong to hurt animals as we do when they are in the facilities but sometimes some evil has to be done for the greater good of the world. Those farms provide food for our country and others that we help and yes there are many chemicals that are associated with the animals but we all know the chances of possibly getting sick. Possible as they are, they are very rare to happen. Yes we could try and find another way to raise our food but for now this is the best way unless you or someone like you decides to find a better way. Honestly if I were to change the system it would be to focus on the waist and try and figure out chemicals that aren't needed and try to find other placements for the animals so there isn't such a large group of the animals in one area.
Animal Cruelty (Factory/Pet)

Here are some facts about animal cruelty with factory farms.. A factory farm is a large-scale industrial operation that houses thousands of animals raised for food"such as chickens, turkeys, cows, and pigs"and treats them with hormones and antibiotics to prevent disease and maximize their growth and food output. Animals are fed and sprayed with huge amounts of pesticides and antibiotics, which can remain in their bodies and are passed on to the people who eat them, creating serious health hazards in humans. The beaks of chickens, turkeys and ducks are often removed in factory farms to reduce the excessive feather pecking and cannibalism seen among stressed, overcrowded birds. A typical supermarket chicken today contains more than twice the fat, and about a third less protein than 40 years ago. 2 out of every 3 farm animals in the world are now factory farmed. Confining so many animals in one place produces much more waste than the surrounding land can handle. As a result, factory farms are associated with various environmental hazards, such as water, land and air pollution. The pollution from animal waste causes respiratory problems, skin infections, nausea, depression and even death for people who live near factory farms. Dairy cows typically live to their third lactation before being culled. Naturally, a cow can live for 20 years. Hog, chicken and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. Egg-laying hens are sometimes starved for up to 14 days, exposed to changing light patterns and given no water in order to shock their bodies into molting, a usually natural process by which worn feathers are replaced. It"s common for 5-10% of hens to die during the forced molting process. Worldwide, about 70 billion farm animals are now reared for food each year. Go Watch this sicking video on how animals that are FACTORY FARMED are slaughtered INHUMANLY, ALIVE, and how they are treated. http://www.youtube.com... we need to stop all this horrible sicking crap. lets try and get this to the President or the USDA and try and put an end to all factory farms and put losers doing this in Prison for life for taking all these life's. God did not make animals to be treated like this or to live such a HORRIBLE SHORT life. These Animals do not have a way to help themselves. They are helpless of themselves and there whole life is suffering. if u wouldnt want this, then why the hell put them through it. animals are people to and they have FEELINGS, they are SENSITIVE, and as bad as they wish all the misery can be taken away, the MOST they can do is SUFFER IN SILENCE. PLEASE, help me and lets all come together to stop this crap. this is the LEAST we can do.. Thank you to u all who are with me and God Bless U All!
JESUS IS LORD (and other discrepancies between Christianity and Islam)

fist of all. tell me what is the topic. the crucifiction of Jesus AS( peace be upon him) or imam Mahdi both topic are really different. if you have taken Jesus as GOD than about Mandi's topic is not relevant. this topic have proved many time from Muslims. and its easy to t information it. i suppose some one should come up with some extra ordinary topics . like talking with ALLAH and seeing him. i saw some peoples talk here like ( i don't believe Jesus was crucified and you are wrong. that is it proved wrong) loll if this discussion it going to be like that than i don't want it. but if you want a real debate than prove me Jesus is lord or god which automatically will be proved wrong when you would say he was crucified loll.
JESUS IS LORD (and other discrepancies between Christianity and Islam)

1. Jesus is Lord not just a prophet as Islam teaches. 2. Let's discuss the twelfth imam"The twelfth and final Imam is Muhammad al-Mahdi, who is believed by the Twelvers to be currently alive, and hidden until he returns to bring justice to the world.[6] "http://en.wikipedia.org...3. Did Jesus die on the cross?Let us reason together. Fritz
The US should close its borders to all immigrants

US population: 305,678,068 (census.gov). # obtaining permanent resident status in 2007: 1,052,415 (dhs.gov). Given how diluted each person's voice is already, the "lesser voice" claim is trivial. Great Famine: Emigrants were women as often as men. By 1851, emigrants had sent ï¿½1,404,000 back to their families in Ireland, allowing more family members to emigrate (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_potato_famine). This was not "leaving a million others to die". An analogy: my grandparents had 6 kids. They lived in NC, but Grandpa spent 5 days each week at a shipyard in VA. Had he "abandoned" his family? Today, Mexican migrant workers send money home, and both countries benefit: US gets labor while Mexico gets money injected into its economy.
The US should close its borders to all immigrants

By bringing in more people, each person has a lesser voice. Allowing immigration does little for fresh perspectives. By knowing that we are the only ones who can fix things, we ensure that more people feel responsible for the welfare of their country, rather than being resentful of the immigrants. Irish potato famine: the men ran away to the US, leaving a million others to die because they could not come. Imagine what would have happened had the Irish instead decided to stay and fight for their independence, as the US did from England. While some would have died, it would have been less than the million deaths because people abandoned Ireland. And, Ireland would not be wartorn as today. In an era of globalization, let's improve the GLOBE!
The US should close its borders to all immigrants

Immigration ban says to world, "We're sufficient." Americans, thinking this way, develop even stronger superiority complexes and allow government to make choices that help US at other nations' expense. Allowing immigration says, "We need help!" We need fresh perspectives to help us realize and correct the destruction caused by our economic, political and military policies. We need the innovation and work ethic that come from struggling through miserable conditions, and the drive and tenacity that characterize most who successfully immigrate. Selfish? Not while US actions have big repercussions on the world at large. In an era of globalization, when we make poor choices, everyone suffers. Win-win-win: US, immigrants, other countries.
The US should close its borders to all immigrants

The original founders did not immigrate to the US in the same way that the immigrants of the US are now coming. They came to a place that was barren, wild country, with its only inhabitants speaking an entirely different language, and having an entirely unrelated culture. They came and had to work just as hard to make the US liveable for them as immigrants ought to in order to make their own countries improve. Besides, if individual rights are being trampled, why should we set the task upon the immigrants to help set it right? This is our country, it is our job to correct the system. Also, helping the US improve will not help all those other miserable countries out there. We ought to make the whole world better, not just the US!
The US should close its borders to all immigrants

Many who settled the US emigrated from England to escape what they perceived as miserable conditions. Others sought riches for themselves by making conditions miserable for the people already here. Current immigrants' motivations are of at least equal integrity to the settlers'. We should help the world improve but risk miserable conditions ourselves. Consider how Cold War changed America's mission from protecting the rights of individuals to protecting the interests of capitalism, a system which reduces individuals to interchangeable parts in a huge machine whose workings they do not understand. Today, capitalism parades its inadequacy while individual rights are trampled. Immigrants recall, crave and remind us of the founding principles.
The US should close its borders to all immigrants

Most immigrants are coming to the US in order to escape miserable conditions in their own country. However, the US should not allow them to do this. After all, by leaving their country, the immigrants are essentially abandoning it to the mercy of whatever dictatorship or terarchy currently governs their society. By leaving the country, the immigrants deplete the number of people left to resist the government, and thus allow the issues to fester and metastasize. We should help the whole world improve, rather than allowing people to run away to a country that already is better than their own. As Maria Von Trap so aptly put it in The Sound of Music, "You can't run away from your problems, you have to face them!"
FIND ONE TOPIC AND DEBATE ME ON IT

Thanks Jazzy - I will (humbly) accept your challenge. I browsed through your user profile to find something we disagree upon; I came across the topic of George W. Bush. You are 'in favor' of him and therefore I am assuming his policies and performance as President, while I am against. Since I have not yet debated on this subject, I figured this may be an interesting and fun debate. Thus my position in this debate is that George W. Bush is a bad president. The subject areas I will be addressing to support my claim include: - His broken promises regarding healthcare, the enviornment, higher education, free trade, and welfare; - Lies he told to the American public (probably to promote his own agenda); - His extremely low approval rating; - Facts about negative occurences during GWB's presidency, that are directly attributed to and/or are a result of his actions such as: the record for biggest annual deficit in history, the biggest drop in the history of the stock market, set the all-time record for most vacation days in history (GWB took the entire month of August 2001 off... you know what happened next), presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed, responsible for high gas prices, dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history, etc... I can go on for paragraphs... Anyway, thanks for the challenge! And good luck in the remainder of the debate. Your challenge is to prove that George W. Bush is a GOOD President. I look forward to your rebuttal.
FIND ONE TOPIC AND DEBATE ME ON IT

I THINK THAT PRESIDENT BUSH IS THE BEST PRESIDENT THAT WE EVER HAD.I THINK THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE GROWN AGAINT HIM SO MICH THAT THEY HAVE NOT SEEN HIS GOOD WORKS.IN MY RESERCH I HAVE FOUND OVER 50 MAJOR ACOMPULISHMENTS THAT BUSH HAVE MET..AND I CAN GRANTE YOU THAT YOU NEVER TOOK THE TIME TO REALIZE THEM. I WILL SHARE WITH YOU 6 OF THEM ACOMPULIMENTS AND TALK ON THEM. (1)Banned Partial Birth Abortion — by far the most significant roll-back of abortion on demand since Roe v. Wade. (2)Signed two income tax cuts, one of which was the largest dollar-value tax cut in world history (3)Changed the tone in the White House, restoring HONOR and DIGNITY to the presidency. (4)Signed the No Child Left Behind Act, delivering the most dramatic education reforms in a generation (challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations). The very liberal California Teachers union is currently running radio ads against the accountability provisions of this Act. (5)Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. (6)Successfully executed two wars in the aftermath of 9/11/01: Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million people who had lived under tyrannical regimes now live in freedom. BET YOU NEVER KNEW THAT HE DID THESE THINGS BEFORE..CAUSE I DIDT
FIND ONE TOPIC AND DEBATE ME ON IT

I believe that you left the option of what to debate on up to me. Your profile says you are In Favor of George W. Bush. Mine says that I am Against, hence my proposed resolution. In Round 1 you said that you "only wanted to debate the best." I assume that this is because you want to challenge yourself and hone your debating skills. Thus my argument (in this debate that has now taken on a form all its own) is that you should accept my proposal and take a stab at debating something/someone you are against personally. A win for you may prove that you are truly a skilled debater who can argue any assigned topic given. This is what happens in 'real' debates; you do not get to choose the resolution or your position. Why not welcome the opportunity to challenge yourself on a fun site without penalty or consequence? I don't feel like debating which Democratic candidate would make a better president (at this point in time). While you can easily argue that I should take my own advice about accepting a challenge, my rebuttal is easy: You are the protaginist of this debate and the one who insisted that I choose the topic at hand. Plus, the burden of "proof" - if any - is on you, for whatever debate topic we either choose or not choose. My proposal is that we choose a new topic to debate in the future, such as another issue our respective profiles suggest we disagree upon: The War in Iraq. I will accept a challenge of yours regarding my position that I am against the war in Iraq. I am also open to other suggestions; leave them in the Comment section of this debate or accept my challenge of arguing that George W. Bush is in fact a good president. Back to you :)
Ultimate Team War - Skyward Sword's Hyrule

Alright, this is my first time trying one of these, but it looks fun. Anyways, here's my team.Link (Ocarina of Time)Equiped as he is right before fighting Ganondorf, just after getting the golden gauntlet. Possesses Biggoron's sword, but also has Master Sword in inventory. Knows all Ocarina Songs (not sure how he can warp in this Hyrule). Has 4 empty bottles all filled with fairies, as well as all Great Fairy powers and bonuses, and Hylian Shield.(http://zelda.wikia.com......)Stands at the top of the Great Tree in Faron Woods.Eragon (Inheritance Cycle)Equiped as he is right before obtaining Eldunari from Vault of Souls. Possesses immense magical ability, as well as magical sword Brisingr. Also has powerful telepathic abilities(http://inheritance.wikia.com......)Positioned on top of his dragon Saphira.Saphira (Inheritance Cycle)Powerful female dragan of Eragon, she also has immense magical powers, the ability to breath blue fire, extremely tough scales, and vey sharp teeth and claws.(http://inheritance.wikia.com......)Flying 50 feet over Lanayru desert.Makuta Teridax (Bionicle series)Hard to describe him (probably easier to just read his wiki page). Has 42 unique powers, ability to absorb enemies using a shadow claw. Is in his form right before battling Toa Vakama. Because not doing so would make him broken, his quick-dodging, rapid-healing, and invincibility abilities will be significantly weaker than that page suggests.(http://biosector01.com......)List of powers (http://biosector01.com......)Standing at the summit of Eldin Volcano, just outside the room that requires an immense amount of water to open.General Grevious (Star Wars)Intelligent droid commander. Equiped with four lightsabers, electrostaff, blaster, and grappling hook. Standing next to Link.(http://starwars.wikia.com......)I have clarified any possible confusions in the comments section, and I am ready to begin. May the best team win!
I did not strawman in my debate with 16kadams

http://www.debate.org...16kadams #1 argument was "It is immoral to actively use a faculty against its proper function."I then used his argument and plugged in examples of things using his own logic and argument, would make things immoral.The main reason people are thinking that I posted a strawman was that 16k said "A faculty in this situation is the natural ability to commit in a certain action." He is saying that his argument only fits into this definition of faculty. So, he is trying to say only something as in a biological thing, or human organ could fit into this definition. He is saying because I used manmade objects in my argument, it does not apply to his argument. This is false.The reason I did not strawman was that in his round 2 arguments, he gives two examples. The first example is him using his #1 argument and plugging in a bicycle to classify as good or bad (Good and bad are the same thing as moral and immoral.)"Another example contradiction used was a car, [1] I will provide a second example as well, a bicycle. We can also classify a bicycle good or bad, it is good if it moves forward when you pedal and the two wheels work correctly to propel you forward. We can call it bad if it does not work in the motion of bringing you to point A or B. The bike is good if it fulfills is faculty or bad if it does not. This, like above, applies to this in the same way. As homosexual acts to not fulfill the faculty, we can assume homosexual acts can be classified as bad."He uses this example of a bicycle and uses his own argument to justify whether or not it is moral or immoral(good or bad.) He then posts another example. This example utilizes the same method of plugging in a man made object into his own argument and saying whether it is good or bad. For this example, he uses coke."Now, lets use an example. As contradiction used fast food [1], I will use coca cola. The purpose of drinking is to quench thirst, so with this information most sodas will actually go against this purpose as they dehydrate. This is also a refutation to the pleasure argument, as my opponent may claim this is the purpose of sex. This is false, although drinking coke, for example, has pleasure to it, it does not fulfill the purpose of drinking: hydration."So now, he has used two manmade objects and plugged them into his own argument and told us whether it was good or bad(moral or immoral.) I then did the exact same thing as he did, and I plugged in examples of manmade objects into his argument. Using his argument, I told whether these objects were moral or immoral.Therefore, in no way did I misinterpret his argument, because I used his argument the exact same way that he did. I did not use a strawman.Thank you,SeelTheMan
I did not strawman in my debate with 16kadams

I accept. I don't want to end my 12 debate winning streak, but you did bluntly straw man. Clarification: I will clarify that you did post A straw man argument. I do not have to argue that your entire argument was a straw man, as per your resolution. NO SEMANTICS. 8000 character limit. No comments in the comment section during or AFTER the debate. No new arguments in the third round. No trolling. No disobeying my rules. No semantics on my rules. No disobeying the rule that dictates no semantics on my rules. No semantics on that statement. No rebutting any of my arguments...kidding. I have 1 minute left to submit, so i'll stop typing now... 3...2...1...
I did not strawman in my debate with 16kadams

I must prove that I did not strawman in my debate with 16kadams. . http://www.debate.org...Con must prove that I did strawman in my debate with 16kadams. "The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. ". http://www.nizkor.org...;1st
South Ossetia Has Every (Philosophical) Right to Secede from Georgia.

Philosophical: Pertaining to philosophy Philosophy: 1. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs 2. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct Dictionary.com Now when we look a philosophical rights and in this debate particularly the right of South Osseria to secede we have to look closely at what philosophy is. Now different people have different philosophy and that is apparent but as the definitions I have posted and common sense, philosophy has to be based on practicality and rational thinking together. Practically and rationally thinking, people dying is neither practical nor rational for the secession of a nation from another that is already a democracy and provides (philosophically) all power to the people. The South Ossetians are in a system of government in which all rights are with the people, so in that sense they can't claim they don't get individual freedom. Now just because South Ossetia doesn't like Georgia there is no philosophical (which is based on rationality and practical thinking) secession would cause violence, as it did, and death of many people for the satisfaction of few. As I said earlier, violence, death, and even more escalation (if foreign powers like NATO and Russia got tangled) would not be practical or rational and in turn South Ossetia should not philisophically have this right You base this philosophical right on your opinion and people in the world have many different opinions, so what we really have to look at is rationality and practicality, the essence of philosophy Therefore we should negate this resolution
I am a n00b.

org. My opponent has many n00b qualities. First, the entirity of his first round is, "I am not a n00b. If you think that I am a n00b, try to PWNZOR me. " Mongeese uses no sources, no defintions, and no case. As one can see by the entirity of my opponent's case, he is a n00b. The defintion of n00b is 'newbie' That is, they are the same word. . http://whatis.techtarget.com... A newbie is a new user of the internet. The modern definition is "a newcomer or novice" to anything internet related. . http://www.answers.com... . http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. My opponent joined Debate. org yesterday. So, by definition, my opponent is a n00b. 2. My opponent has acted like a nub in his first debate (this one). His case included a false claim and nothing to back it up. He then ordered me to disprove him. I have done that relatively simply. These are common n00bish qualities of new DDO members. . http://www.debate.org... I welcome my opponent's response.
I am a n00b.

1. If you've come to the website before, you are still a nub. You are still a 'newcomer', and therefore a n00b. 2. Burden of Proof lies with the instigator; therefore, it was CON's duty to prove that he was not a n00b. He had no case to do this. He simply responded to my case. My opponent claims that his opening was not like a n00b because of the way I started one of my debates. However, in my debate, I had said that I would present my case in the following round. My opponent did not do similarly. Overall, my opponent is a n00b. IN CONCLUSION, my opponent is by definition a n00b. Further, he debates like one. Vote PRO. I wish my opponent luck as he continues to debate on debate. org.
I am a n00b.

1. Yesterday was not the first day I came to this website. After all, you showed me the website a few weeks ago. You should know. You were there. 2. It would have helped to, rather than sourcing a page of links, link to the specific examples that you wished people to find. It is comparable to if a person asks you what city you live in, and you say, "I live near Houston. " He still wouldn't know what city you live in, and he'd only have a general idea. In any case, my short introduction was so that I could respond to your attacks. Because I was CON, I wanted to wait for PRO to make a point before "CON-ing" it. You had a similar short introduction in one of your debates: . http://www.debate.org... And the first round, well, that was supposed to be sarcasm. My other two rounds demonstrate more serious debating. IN CONCLUSION, I have been here before, and I do not act like n00bs.