BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Seaworld does not respect animal rights and should be shut down.

I am unfamiliar with this debate style, sorry! On to the debate... I think we have overlooked one obvious question here. Do animals have the right to freedom? Before I answer this, I will ask a similar question: Do humans have the right to freedom? Because we live in the modern world, people often jump to the conclusion that freedom is a basic human right. But really, it isn't. Humans may be just another byproduct of evolution, and even the Bible condones slavery. Now if humans don't have the right to freedom, then why should animals? The answer is simple: they don't. Now I don't entirely disagree with your argument. I think you have made some very good points so far. But the fact is that the only example you've given of Sea World's mistreatment of animals is that of the Killer Whale which is a very difficult animal to maintain. This is only one example among the tens or hundreds of other animals Sea World keeps in captivity, and therefore falls under the hasty generalization fallacy. It is less likely that Sea World mistreats its animals and more likely that Sea World has difficulty maintaining the psyche of such a large and intelligent creature like the Killer Whale. As such, the psychological issues you mentioned are more likely due to a lack of competence than a lack of respect. There are laws protecting the treatment of animals. If Sea World consistently violates those laws, then they should be shut down. However, they have done nothing that goes against the explicit laws of the government, and therefore should not be shut down.
Seaworld does not respect animal rights and should be shut down.

I accept your challenge. So does Sea World respect animal rights? First we must ponder what rights animals actually have. I would like to think that animals have a right to food, a suitable environment, and other animals to socialize with. They have a right to be treated with care. The people at Sea World take pride in their "world-class standard of care, state-of-the-art animal habitats, and commitment to animal welfare"[1] Additionally, they claim that "Assuring the health and well-being of the animals in our zoological parks is a responsibility our skilled professionals take extremely seriously"[1]. In short, these animals have it better off than the vast majority of the human population. So do animals really have any rights? The answer to this question will change depending on your worldview. I will only cover three, so if you believe there is a commonly accepted worldview that acknowledges animal rights being equal to those of humans then please share. The first is reincarnation. In the earliest records of reincarnation, there is a karma system. If you do good then you will have good karma. If you do bad then you will have bad karma. But how does this relate to animals? "A person who has indulged in immoral deeds . . . will attract [bad] karma which will ensure that he is reincarnated in hell, or in lower life forms"[2]. By this logic, animals are beings who were "demoted" from being human because of their wickedness in a past life and therefore have less rights or none at all. The second is the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is something everyone is familiar with, and many people believe this to be process by which the diversity of life on earth arose. Now there may be many evolutionists who believe animals have just as many rights as humans, but evolutionarily speaking, inherent rights are an idea that humans came up with after developing consciousness. Additionally, animals are evolutionarily inferior to humans and therefore have less rights. The third is intelligent design, or more specifically, Christianity. I know the first two points were not specifically aimed at any religion or worldview, but since intelligent design is more than often an argument used for religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, I decided just pick a common religion to save time. In the book of Genesis in the Bible, God gives Adam dominion over all the animals of the Earth and allows Adam to name each species. God makes humanity superior to animals, and creates humankind in His own image. The truth is that the animals at Sea World live a much better and healthier life than animals in the wild. Overhyped propaganda has made zealous animal rights activists that are often fighting for the wrong cause. There are starving people in Africa and sex traffickers in Europe, but lets help some animals escape pampered captivity into the wild they may have never known before. I look forward to your reply. Source(s): 1. http://seaworldentertainment.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
On balance Asians have a Higher IQ than Caucasians

My opponent hasn't really argued anything and if you want to vote for me do so but the debate is pretty much canceled. He made a bare assertion that Asians have higher IQs on average without substantiating it in any way and I should win on negation alone. As far as the stats in the Bell Curve are concerned they used IQ tests on just the upper middle class Asians which flaws the study and it left out Asians from low IQ areas like Thailand. Do a no vote or vote me.
On balance Asians have a Higher IQ than Caucasians

Please take your time with coming up with your points. I think it's more important to have an intelligent debate that exposes the truth than determining who wins one debate on a debate site.To be honest, I think you're going to have a tough hurdle to jump over. But, your main weapon is to attack the reliability of the tests.Reliability of the Data. I think this is a big issue. Unfortunately, researchers do lie and fudge the data. Long ago, I used to work in a research lab and I saw firsthand how data was tweaked so the findings would point towards a certain direction. A lot of research is based on grants that will be rewarded continuously if there are some findings. If no statistically signficant findings are found, then grant money dries up. So, there is a definite stress on professors to find something meaningful. So, when you find data that doesn't seem to go against your theory, I've seen people conveniently cross out data points, saying that there was a dirty sample pool or some other excuse. When I was an idealistic student at the time, I was dumbfounded. But, it's reality. That's why I think it's very important that multiple studies are done that support the same conclusion. Unfortunately, we do find some conflicting results with respect to adoption and intelligence. Some studies point to a strong correlation with environment among adopted children - wealthy familes who adopt have a profound impact on intelligence as opposed to genetics. However, from what I can see, adoption studies still do point towards a genetic component to intelligence. For example, the studies done by the Korean adoptees is pretty compelling (the sample size of 43 is small but not that bad. Minimum sample size depends upon the volatility of the data but generally anything less than 20 is not reliable.) I wish there were more studies done in this field but it's such a politically taboo topic.
On balance Asians have a Higher IQ than Caucasians

Resolved - On balance Asians have a higher IQ than CaucasiansTermsOn Balance - In general, with all things considered. On the NormAsians - A person of Asian ancestryCaucasians - White People, White Skinned possibly of European Origin.IQ - intelligence quotientThis is a pretty clear debate. No trolling, no semantics, and no arguing this is a truism so it can not be debated. I am affirming the stance that asian people tend to have a higher IQ than Caucasians.BOP is on me to prove this is normatively trueApply in comments
January/February LD Debate Resolved.

I need some more practice to make sure I can win at my upcoming varsity tournament. So I put a limit on this for as good or better than me.. This round will be in LD Format, therefore there must be Framework- Value Structure or Burden Contentions Claims Warrants and Impacts I'm looking forward to a good opponent and a good round, I really need someone who understands exactly what LD and how to debate LD. First round is for acceptance Second round Aff presents case Neg presents case/rebuttal Third round Aff rebuttal Neg rebuttal Fourth round Final Aff rebuttal, then Neg doesn't post up a final rebuttal so it can be like a real LD round. Looking forward to a great round.
It's okay for bars and pubs to discriminate against the working class.

I agree with you completely. You win. Thanks for an interesting debate. You're right, it's true anyone should be allowed in., though if someone DID fall in to an open sewer, or was walking around with cow guts, I would be a little grossed out. ;) BTW, my user name is based mostly off the poem The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe. I am still Lenore! XD
It's okay for bars and pubs to discriminate against the working class.

(I wonder why she is no more Lenore, but that's none of my business really). Anyway, I accept my opponent's definitions and interpretation of the sign to mean the establishment operates a dress-code policy, which prohibits people wearing dirty clothes from entering the building. She asked why this policy should be outlawed? Well, the reason is a pub is traditionally the only place where the whole of society can gather together, regardless of social status. It is more than a business, it's a community resource. Landlords are, of course, at liberty to refuse entrance to unaccompanied minors or drunks, but otherwise they should serve anybody that has the price of a pint. Think about the man whose teenage daughter is a regular outpatient at the local abortion clinic. As a dutiful father, each time she is admitted, he waits for her outside in the car park, Should he be asked to leave the premises? No, of course not. Now what about if he has come straight from work without getting changed? Still no. Well, what about if he works at the local abattoir and is wearing a white coat which is all splattered with blood and he occupies his time by standing by the staff entrance with a big bucket of unwanted cows' entrails which he feeds to packs of stray dogs? Er, probably, yes actually. Okay, let me think of some better examples… Say, my opponent decides to visit an elderly relative at the local old folks home. Nothing wrong with that is there? Well what about if she decides, for some reason, to wear a skull mask and pull her top up over her head? Just because the last time she did that one of the aged inmates mistook her for the Grim Reaper and had a turn for the worse, is that any reason to stop her at the door? Again, probably yes, okay, let's try again… What about Sunday morning when a Catholic gambler loses not only his shirt, but his shoes as well and decides to repent of his sins but on arriving at the church too take mass he sees a sign on the door which reads: "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? No, churches, like pubs, should be open to all. . http://www.derf.net...... Or what about the businessman running late for his for his flight from Kinchasa who is refused entry to the Executive Lounge at the airport just because he fell into an open sewer on the way? Since he's got a first class ticket, he should be allowed in regardless, just like working class people should be allowed into pubs, provided they have enough money to pay for their drink. . http://news.bbc.co.uk... My opponent also wrote: "There's always one person who will be insulted by anything". How true. At some point some toff must have been in the pub when a working class person walked in and complained to the management: "I say, landlord, some filthy working class oik in a boiler suit has just walked in. I request and require you to have him removed from the premises forthwith". Not very nice is it? How would they like it if their local fish and chip shop had a sign in the window that read "No top hats, tail-coats or bowties"?
It's okay for bars and pubs to discriminate against the working class.

My opponent's statement: It's NOT okay for bars and pubs to discriminate against the working class. Thanks, and I look forward to an interesting debate. The sign you provided reads: "No soiled clothing and no working boots." This should be outlawed why? Please explain. First off, the definition of soiled is: (from http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Pronunciation: \ˈsȯi(-ə)l\ Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French soiller, suiller, from Old French soil wallow of a wild boar, abyss, from Latin solium chair, bathtub; akin to Latin sedēre to sit — more at sit Date: 13th century transitive verb 1 : to stain or defile morally : corrupt , pollute 2 : to make unclean especially superficially : dirty 3 : to blacken or taint (as a person's reputation) by word or deed intransitive verb : to become soiled or dirty. So, to say no-one with soiled clothes are permitted in the pub, is to say anyone unclean, or dirty can't go in, right? A simple dress code. Why should this be outlawed? Because it may offend someone? There's always one person who will be insulted by anything. Are you to say a posted sign reading "No shirt, no shoes, no service." is discriminatory act against nudists??? http://www.derf.net... http://ecx.images-amazon.com...
It's okay for bars and pubs to discriminate against the working class.

There are certain bars and pubs in central London that have a signs on the doors designed to keep workers out. Here is an example: http://www.flickr.com... These are discriminatory and should be outlawed. After all, if they put a sign in the door which read: "No skull-caps or gartels" they would be had up for being anti-Semitic. Similarly, if a sign read: "Die deutsche Sprache ist nach innen ausschlieï¿½lich verboten" German customers would rightly protest. Equally, a sign reading: "No breathtakingly loud Hawaiian shirts or hideously vulgar checked pants" would certainly infuriate American tourists. The toffs and snobs that cause these signs to be put up may be acting lawfully, but since the workers' money is as good as anybody else's, morally speaking, working class customers should not be discriminated against in this way.
A Ouija Board Has Spiritual Qualities and Is Able To Receive Messages From The Dead

The technicality proposed in round:1 was unearthed during research because I know next to nothing about this topic. On the question whether 'A Ouija Board Has Spiritual Qualities and Is Able To Receive Messages From The Dead' I propose the affirmative giving John 1:5 as the supporting material, to wit: "The light shineth in darkness"
A Ouija Board Has Spiritual Qualities and Is Able To Receive Messages From The Dead

For all I know the Ouija device is used for communicating with Angels, and the Angels aren't dead having never been incarnate; so on this point I also beg the question until the proponent supplies evidence to the contrary. My opponent states a willingness to repeat the experiment; I await the outcome of the process as outlined, and in accord with the rules supplied by the original manufacturer.
A Ouija Board Has Spiritual Qualities and Is Able To Receive Messages From The Dead

I do not see how your argument has the slightest thing to do with mine. if it is a repetition you want, the i will. its obnoxious to think that "Spirits" are controlling it. it is an involuntary action that your conscious mind does not register. short story short, you are moving it without knowing it. i hope the judges see that i am providing proof AND a logical explanation. if they fail to see it, then i would like to ask my opponent to give me an explanation of how it works AND proof of said explanation. also, i would like to question on what my opponent meant by their last argument.
A Ouija Board Has Spiritual Qualities and Is Able To Receive Messages From The Dead

I would like to begin this debate by explaining what a Ouija Board is and what it does. A Ouija Board is a "mystical" Board that, when asked a question, is supposed to receive and spell out a message from a person that has passed on. I am here to say that a Ouija Board has no spiritual qualities what so ever and therefore, i negate the resolution. now, my opponent may ask the question, "then how does it work?". well, i have an answer. According to Howstuffworks.com, the pointer of the Ouija Board is moved by something called the ideomotor effect. This is basically your unconscious mind moving the body without the conscious mind figuring it out. So, to make a long point short, the "spirit" is not moving the pointer, you are. to prove this, i would like to bring up an example of a personal experience i had. i tried the Ouija board myself, solely to prove the "spiritual" aspect of it wrong. I tried the Ouija Board twice. once was done the traditional way. i got a completely logical answer, an actual word. then, i had my friend put a blindfold on me. I then asked the Ouija Board the same question, but got gibberish as an answer. This is because i was unable to see where the letters were and therefore unable to make out a legible answer. The judges should vote for me because i have stated several points, a logical reasoning, and an example. I will await my opponents response.
Video games are a sport

This is a question many gamers and non-gamers ask all the time online. Are video games a mental game, or are they just for inactive slackers? Everyone knows a person who is into video games or you just might be into video games and it is very well to know if these games are worthwhile. Although something might be a sport, it doesn"t mean it"s productive. Video games could be a sport in a way. Many people say that video games aren"t a sport for its lack of physical activity. There are many games that are considered to be a sport but have no physical activity in them; some of these sports include curling, chess, auto racing, golf, competitive eating, and poker. You would think that most of these sports include mental productivity but so do video games because many them challenge the gamer to make tough decisions, take risks, and work as a team. Games such as "Star Craft" can increase a player"s brain flexibility (This was found out by British researchers Brian Glass, Todd Maddox, and Bradley Love). Although video games could be a sport they also could not be considered a sport. "Sport" is defined as "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature," by Dictionary.com. If you think about it most people play video games for entertainment and for doing nothing. Most people don"t play virtual games thinking that they are going to become a professional gamer with mental skill in the game. Video games do have some productive games but are not used for productiveness and used as excuses to wasting time on a computer or console. In conclusion, I would say that video games are a sport. Even though they can be useless, they are a sport. Sports aren"t always productive just like video games but it is a skill that is very challenging to earn. Video games can be very lazy, sluggish, and idle but it"s still a skill that can be a competitive and worldwide.
Certification required for homeschooling in California

however, the HSLDA is busy, by their own statement, circulating a petition to reverse a civil ruling from a criminal case. The case, in any other situation, would not have effected homeschooling families. In fact, there are markedly less cases of child abuse in home-schooling families than in public school families. However, instead of the court relegating their ruling to a criminal case, they decided to do what a civil court and the legislative branch are required to do. In fact, they overruled amendments to the Compulsory Education laws (made to accommodate home-schoolers) that were voted into the state constitution by the population of California. There are checks and balances in the American government and the governments of its states which are supposed to prohibit such rulings from being made. The rule of precedence in the government is constantly used to protect rights that belong to people (an example is that in another state, a Deaf girl's mother sued a public school to provide transcription services for her daughter, instead of interpreting services. Now parents of deaf students can point to that case and say that a school in that state is illegal if it refuses to provide transcription (http://www.yourcaptioner.com...) (Solorzano V Glendora High). California's legislative branch approved the amendment after cases suing for homeschooling rights succeeded and extensive studies showed that the drop out rate was lower and the ACT/SAT score average was higher among Home-schooled students. The California courts overstepped their bounds because: 1. The case was a criminal case, not requiring civil repercussions. 2. The case did not show a growing trend of any sort to support that home-schooling is a dangerous environment. 3. There was established precedence that was in defense of Home-schooling rights.
Certification required for homeschooling in California

You say the court overstepped there boundaries by forcing parents who are working as teachers to obtain a teaching license. But the fact is that it is up to the state to set education requirements and it can do so in part of police powers to regulate things in-order for the public good. Also according the HSLDA The Home School Legal Defense Association says california's regulation on home schooling in California as low. http://www.hslda.org...
Certification required for homeschooling in California

California's Court of Appeal ruled this past week that home-schooling parents are required to have state certification to continue homeschooling. This is, despite the fact that home-schooled students consistently complete the ACT or SAT higher than privately AND publicly schooled students, forcing Parent-educators to pay thousands of dollars to receive certification or else put their kids in a school system in which they place no trust. There was a reason for the Compulsory Public Education Act when it was first founded, because the Public School System (which was originally founded by Christians) was the only reliable way to school children. Sure, there were a few private schools, but they were far too expensive to send children to. Now, since Just before I entered 6th grade, Home-schooling was recognized by nearly every state (excepting, obviously, California) as a competent method of educating children, due to the test grades of people who had home-schooled without the government's consent being higher than the public school's. The decision of the court should have stuck to the evidence at hand, being the one single case of a child who had been abused by one parent without the knowledge or consent of the other parent. Because of one single case, the court has decided the throw out the baby, bathwater, tub, and bathroom all in one foul swoop. This is not only forcing students who have home-schooled their entire life to drop back an untold number of grades, but forcing the parents to do all of the following if they decide to disagree with the state: Pay a fine of up to $3000 ($1000 for Education Code Section 48293 and $2000 for Penal Code Section 272) Go to jail for a time not to exceed one year (Penal Code Section 272) Child to be removed from what the state of California considers an unsafe environment (because it is unsafe to not educate children exactly how the state says to, apparently, therefore, the parents lose their children) I say all this is the court overstepping its bounds and the state of California trying to put a leash on the next generation, instead of allowing them to make new discoveries. I know this much, I will never go to California if this decision is not amended or removed, and if I had lived there, I would move out immediately.