BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Do animals be amused and presented in a circus or used to be kept in their natural habitats

Animals should be kept in their natural habitats since that's where they are suppose to be and live naturally. They feel very intimidated and pushed by their trainors in a circus and they feel uncomfortable by their context perhaps they might be afraid of their predators and isolated in one area where they don't at least communicate with their type. Some animals need a wide amount of space to be able to hunt for food not to be fed by their trainors in a compact enclosure depends on how much the size is of the animal I think that it is horrible to keep wild animals such as tigers, lions and monkeys in captivity. They are not able to rome freely. It is hard because they are not able to communicate with us which is why people are able neglect animals. I also believe that is alright to have domestic animals in captivity (as long as the are treated okay) because they no longer fit the lifestyle of wild habitats The reason people want to ban animals in the circus is clearly because of the way they are treated not only cared for but how they are made to do tricks by being hit and abused otherwise its kind of obvious they wouldnt follow a human unless it seemed like they were in charge.
Do animals be amused and presented in a circus or used to be kept in their natural habitats

Animals should be kept in their natural habitats since that's where they are suppose to be and live naturally. They feel very intimidated and pushed by their trainors in a circus and they feel uncomfortable by their context perhaps they might be afraid of their predators and isolated in one area where they don't at least communicate with their type. Some animals need a wide amount of space to be able to hunt for food not to be fed by their trainors in a compact enclosure depends on how much the size is of the animal
Do animals be amused and presented in a circus or used to be kept in their natural habitats

the point is the resolution says I am proposing that animals are relatively amused and well-presented in a circus as opposed to their natural habitat.You failed to provide a single contention in favour of natural habitat at all.Your single contention against circus-life is that it's unnatural and that the tricks they do are unnatural but what you don't realise is that they are given treats and are very well fed because the circus needs to use them. In the wild the species could survive without them and brutally will show this.
Do animals be amused and presented in a circus or used to be kept in their natural habitats

Circuses force animals to perform tricks that have nothing to do with how these magnificent creatures behave in the wild. These unnatural acts range from a tiger jumping through a flaming hoop to bears riding bicycles. Animals are sometimes injured while performing: tigers, who naturally fear fire, have been burned jumping through flaming hoops. Training animals to perform acts that are sometimes painful or that they do not understand requires whips, tight collars, muzzles, electric prods and other tools. Elephants are trained through the use of an ankus"a wooden stick with a sharp, pointed hook at the end to discourage undesired behavior. An elephant handler will never be seen working with an elephant without an ankus in one hand or discreetly tucked under his arm. Although an elephant"s skin is thick, it is very sensitive"sensitive enough to feel a fly on her back. The ankus is embedded into elephants' most sensitive areas, such as around the feet, behind the ears, under the chin, inside the mouth, and other locations around the face. Sometimes it is used to smash them across the face. Circuses claim to use "positive reinforcement" and to base their tricks on behaviors that animals carry out naturally. If this were true, however, the trainers would be carrying bags of food treats, not a metal weapon.
Do animals be amused and presented in a circus or used to be kept in their natural habitats

Animals are not always trained by being hit and abused. If you hit an animal for jumping, it will think jumping altogether is bad. Iften what they do is suddenly throw a treat at it when it jumps through the hula hoop so to say. This confuses it at first but when it relises that by putting a certain muscle power behind the action, they get a treat they assume it is a superior and 'good' thing to do. The pain method is just to keep them tamed (similar to punishing a child no matter how much they cry).In the wild many animals die through brutal natural selection where if they don't get enough food while they starve.Circus life might be harsh but it's far kinder than brute natural selection.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President

I would like to apologize for not defining unqualified. I meant to use a different definition of the word: Unqualified (adjective): not competent or sufficiently knowledgeable to do something. Since I had my chance to define unqualified in the first round, I would like to forfeit this debate. It also wouldn't be fair to my opponent if I used a different definition out of nowhere. Lastly, my opponent is correct that Clinton and Trump are legally qualified to become president, as they meet all requirements set by the Constitution. Again, I would like to apologize to my opponent and all those that were expecting a good debate. I will be sure to define key terms in future debates.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President

IntroductionSince my opponenet has not defined qualified, I shall do it for him/her.qualified - meets all qualifications set by Article II of the Constitution to be presidentI only have to prove that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton meets the requirements set by the Constitution to be president. So I'll be arguing that both are qualified according to the Constitution to be POTUS. Best wishes to my opponent
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both unqualified to become President

Introduction and Layout Many people are wary about our selection for the next president of the United States, and for good reason. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have stated the most ridiculous things, have terrible public behavior, have severe bias against opposing people/parties, etc. First round: Acceptance and Introduction Second round: Main argument Third round: Rebuttals and Conclusion Thank you in advance for accepting! Please note, Con can choose to defend Clinton, Trump, or both candidates.
Hookers are better then a girlfriend

Those are excellent point. So here is my reply. With hookers, you do not need to wine and dine them, you do not need to spend money on birthdays and anniversaries. There is always a chance at STD's but if you hire an escort agency hooker they get tested and try to stay clean for their clients. Girlfriends can also have STD's from previous relationships, there is no cure for herpes. Having a relationship can be great but as we see with the divorce rate at 50%, obviously marriages do not work half the time, therefore relationships can be straining and stressful. The fighting and arguing, you don't get that with a hooker. I don't need to watch Survivor or Top Chef or the Voice on TV to please my partner. I can watch sports and guy action shows and the remote is always mine. But guys have needs and many are sexual, and that's where the hooker comes in, pay and leave. Women need companionship more then guys and they need guys to have children, men on the other hand just want sex and they would rather hang out with bro's before hoe's. Men are from Mars and women are from Venus, both sexes have different needs and interests and for guys it's all about sex. That is why 65% of men watch porn, they just want sex. With a hooker you get the sex minus the bickering of a woman about dishes and chores and wining and dining.
Hookers are better then a girlfriend

Hello. I will be debating on why having a girlfriend is better than hiring a prostitute. To begin with, safety. I believe that when forming an intimate relationship with someone, you are at much lower risk of catching SDTs. Having a deep conversation with someone on whether they have any medical conditions that might influence your common relationship is always a positive thing. Second, being in a relationship is not only limited to having sexual intercourse but also having a helping hand in life. It is much more beneficial to have second pair of hands when dealing with household chores. And most importantly sharing opinions. Sometimes our rational decision-making skills are impaired and thus hearing different perspective might save us from making wrong choices. I'm looking forward to hearing your arguments.
U.N.S.C vs Alliance

"Every combat vehicle and personnel is equipped with a shield in the Alliance" One shot from either a lazy boy, Gauss Cannon Warthogs, Rail guns and a Scorpion would easily put halt to an Alliance Mako or Hammerhead. "Imagine fighting an Alliance Marine who not only has a shield but durable body armor under-neath as well as the fact they will be in cover which is something the Elites don't do." Shields in the Mass Effect universe is weaker than Covenant. Without doubt it would take some time to destroy the shields of ones armor, but once it needs recharging it would only need a couple rounds from a SAW, D.M.R., B.R. and he/she would be dead. "The only military creation that could actually stand a chance against the Alliance is the Infinity." I would have to disagree on that one. The strongest ship within the Alliance Navy, Dreadnoughts has the kinetic firepower of about 38 kilotons of TNT. U.N.S.C. Frigates and Halcyon-class light cruisers have a destructive output of 64.53 kilotons TNT, that's twice the amount of firepower (and these are the weakest ships in the navy). When comparing Dreadnoughts to U.N.S.C. destroyers and Marathon-class heavy cruisers which use a total 129.06 kilotons of TNT, the chances of the Alliance winning in space battles are is near impossible. The U.N.S.C. Infinity has a total 258.12 kilotons of firepower (per shot). Not only that but the Infinity is installed with 6 Frigates meaning another 387.18 kilotons of firepower per shot. (It would take everything the Alliance has to stand one chance.) "One of the biggest assets to the ground forces of the Alliance is Biotics who are capable of manipulating their environment and enemies. Even the Spartans wouldn't stand a chance against your average Biotic" The Alliance is mainly comprised of standard troopers, though powerful, encountering an Alliance trooper with biotics would be extremely rare. Don't get me wrong, Alliance troopers do stand a better chance than normal U.N.S.C. soldiers, but as I said before. More and more people are being assimilated into the SPARTAN-IV program, bringing the ties of battle slightly more into favor of the U.N.S.C.
U.N.S.C vs Alliance

Okay, a lot of good points in there but since you want to debate by your own rules I will respect that. Let me say that my biggest strength is that almost every combat vehicle and personnel is equipped with a shield in the Alliance. They are usually blocking high energy projectiles and hold fairly well against them. A lot of UNSC weapons still use gunpowder-projected bullets especially their small arms. Think of all the ammunition it takes to bring down an Elite in the Halo games. Imagine fighting an Alliance Marine who not only has a shield but durable body armor under-neath as well as the fact they will be in cover which is something the Elites don't do. Like I said before the Alliance uses high-energy projectiles as ammunition. While the UNSC is used to fighting those kinds of enemies they still don't have the technology to repulse it (excluding the Spartans and some UNSC vehicles with it). Not to mention the Alliance has Disruptor ammo which can take down shields fast as well as Incindiary and Shredder ammo for armored targets. The UNSC also relies too much on ground forces which is apparent if you know the details about the Covenant invasions. Yes, there are MAC cannons but destroying their generators causes them to shut down. This was one of the reasons Reach fell. The only military creation that could actually stand a chance against the Alliance is the Infinity. One of the biggest assets to the ground forces of the Alliance is Biotics who are capable of manipulating their environment and enemies. Even the Spartans wouldn't stand a chance against your average Biotic.
U.N.S.C vs Alliance

From following the Technological Achievement Tiers, we can observe where our 2 factions stand. By Halo 4 the U. N. S. C. has become a Tier 2 civilization: Interstellar. However, if the U. N. S. C. Discovers the second half of the Janus Key, they would become a Tier 1 civilization: World builders. This would mean they would achieve the technology of pre-historic humans. During the time of the Mass Effect trilogy the Alliance has only achieved Tier 3. Tier 3: Space-Faring Species has efficient Slipspace navigation, mass drivers, asynchronous linear-induction weapons, holocrystal storage and semi-sentient AIs (though their creation requires memory transfer from the freshly deceased and/or Flash Cloning). They have had no outside influence. Tier 2: Interstellar The species has the ability to perform exceedingly accurate Slipspace navigation, near-instantaneous communication and man-portable application of energy manipulation. The unified state of the 26th Century Covenant stands at this level. Tier 1: World Builders The species has the ability to manipulate gravitational forces, create AI with full sentience, fabricate super-dense materials, perform super-accurate Slipspace navigation, the ability to create life, and the ability to create worlds (e. g. ; Onyx, the Halo Array and The Ark). The Forerunners along with Prehistoric humanity and Prehistoric San 'Shyuum are the only known civilizations to reach this level. Technology: A downfall in Mass Effect is how the all the factions, even the Reapers to an extent, are dependent on the Mass Relays. Relays only go to other relays, all of which are only located in Mass Effect territory. Yes, it is true that Mass effect ships have their own FTL drives independent of the Relays, but they are horribly sluggish compared to Slip-space, and requires regular discharge over extended travel periods. Slip-space is not limited to specific points, and is far faster than Mass Effect non-Relay FTL (The Covenant, and now the U. N. S. C. Achieve about 912 ly/d, while the Reapers get about 30 ly/d, meaning Halo is about 30x faster). This makes it horrendously hard for Mass Effect to take the offensive in any timely manner. Population: The U. N. S. C. have the population advantage when compared to Mass Effect. In Mass Effect the humans have an Earth population of 11.4 billion, while U. N. S. C. Earth has a population of around 23 billion. however these are only mere numbers, the real advantage of the U. N. S. C. Is that more and more O. D. S. T. and standard marines are being trained into the SPARTAN-IV program, producing and armed force of highly skilled super-soldiers, though the Alliance has the N7 program, they are outnumbered when compared to Spartan VI's.
U.N.S.C vs Alliance

For anyone whose interested in the realm of Science-fiction.Voting Period: 10 DaysTime to argue: 72 Hours Word limit: 10,000 Characters Position:I propose that the U.N.S.C would defeat the Alliance in a galactic war.Scenario:In a galaxy identical to our Milky Way, the Alliance and U.N.S.C have begun galactic war for control over planets and resources. Round format: Round 1: Acceptance. Round 2: First arguments. Round 3: Rebuttal (Counterarguments). Round 4: Second arguments. Round 5: Rebuttal, third argument and Conclusion. Round Topics (Arguments): Argument 1: Technology and Population. Argument 2: Naval and Ground forces. Argument 3: Achievements accomplished from both factions
Genetically Engineering a Better Meal (Agriculture)

Since con did not debate last round I will just make a brief closing statement. Genetic modification has been happening in a sense for thousands of years, the only difference now is our technology and our knowledge of plant biology. While this may not seem necessary in an established country, it is a god send to millions in impoverished countries. It is totally fine that many people in these established countries may make the decision not to buy these items, it is not OK that they try to convince the less established countries to ban them because of their unreasoned belief. If you are concerned about GE products impact on environment and health there are thousands of studies regarding both. The biggest problem I see surrounding this technology is the ignorance of its opponents, just because they don't understand what's going on doesn't mean someone else doesn't, and it especially is not a reason to take someones opportunity at improving their life.
Genetically Engineering a Better Meal (Agriculture)

For more than 10,000 years humans have been modifying the genes of plants. When agricultural practices began they selected the plants that had the best traits, in this selection hundreds or thousands of genes are exchanged at random, which is why it could take several decades before reaching the product in mind. This is where genetic engineering is advantageous, since you can change the individual genes that will lead to your desired outcome without the guess work. What do you mean when you say that plants want animals to thrive? To me the statement say's that not only the plants but evolution as well have intentions, which may be true in the case of plants (though I've seen no evidence to suggest as much) however as Richard Dawkins says, evolution is blind, meaning whatever results came of it were in no way planned. Genetic engineering could be looked at as is in your programming technology, since there is always room for error (hence why I support the safety testing done before these products are released to market), however to suggest that the people working on these products don't know what they're putting in has no basis in reality. One example of this is Golden Rice created by the International Rice Research Institute(IRRI), it is gold in color due to the beta carotene present in the grains after modification. Rice plants naturally produce beta carotene however it is stored in the leaves and not in the rice grain, by rewriting the pathway IRRI was able to make a plant that is not only safe for consumption, but necessary for the survival of millions of people. It seems though that your main concern is whether or not the new food is deemed to be safe. I'd like to respond to that by first reminding that there is no such thing as zero risk, you could choke on even choke on an organic peach. That being said minimizing the potential risk is the best we can do, and for that there is the substantial equivalence testing. When a food is newly introduced before its manufacture can put it to market they first must show studies on the new DNA and any proteins or metabolites that it may produce, they then test for any allergens or toxins that may have been introduced with the new gene, assessment of the risk of gene transfer from food to gut bacteria, assessment of the amount that goes into a normal diet and after it passes all that, if deemed necessary, it may go on to animal testing. This is far more care for safety than any exotic fruits receive, and those such as kiwis have been cause of suffering for many. There are numerous studies covering this very topic and a link to some of those studies is posted in my round 1. http://www.goldenrice.org... http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu...
Genetically Engineering a Better Meal (Agriculture)

It might be true that GE crops tend to have better yields. There is, however, something to be said about tinkering with the blueprints of millions of years of evolution. Fauna evolved with the animal kingdom in a symbiotic relationship where the plant provides energy in the form of food to an animal in exchange for the animal to spread the plant's seed. The plant wants the animal to thrive. The better the animal does, the better the plant does because both benefit from the relationship. In a computer program a programmer knows what the code does for the software he is developing. Some software has millions of lines of code and sometimes programs have bugs. This is with the software developer creating the program. He fully knows the program he has created and there are still bugs. We are doing the same thing with plant's DNA. We are going in.. looking at the code and changing something about the code to suit our needs. However, we did not create the code. We don't exactly know what we are changing and although we have a pretty good idea, the code could also create unintended results. In all the hundred of years we have studied human physiology we still don't know every single process happening within our bodies. Even if we could understand the process of a single human, too many people have different genes which make us different. Some people are allergic to peanuts other people are allergic to shellfish. What is to say that one slight modification of DNA could allow the plant to be more resistant to pest but in turn create a toxin which affect a certain part of the population. The non genetically plants have already been through this. It is called evolution. The non genetically olden plants that evolved a toxin by sheer evolution killed their animal seed carriers. No animals to carry their seeds means just that, no spreading of the plants seeds. This eventually suppressed the plant into extinction. We still don't know nearly enough to tinker with the inner workings of living organism's blueprints and it will backfire when we develop a food source with unforeseen results causing negative dire consequences.
Genetically Engineering a Better Meal (Agriculture)

I am pro in this argument as I believe GE to be a safe and effective technology. There will be three rounds. Round one is to state position and evidence for said position. Genetically engineering is a tool and never the final product, that being said I do agree that testing of newly introduced genes is necessary. However that is not to say that I believe any GE foods on the market are by any means dangerous, with thousands of studies concerning safety I see no reason why so many believe them to be. GE foods have also shown to be better in the case of crop yields and lower amounts of pesticides being used. This technology is good not just for us here in established countries but for those countries who have a poor environment for growing crops. I am not interested in discussing the manufacturers of GE seeds, nor GE Livestock. Those will be for another debate. Please cite sources. http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://gmopundit.blogspot.com... http://www.npr.org...
disney

why would i start the debate in the first place if there wasnt any, and sure if you see a character being over and eating a banana in the general direction of anoter characters gentils then that must surely be a sexual innuendo..as seen in the latest episode that i watched of Handy Manny!! my daughters saw this and said "how funny mummy, manny looks like he's eating a willy". surely you cant be publishing stuff like this in the UK then!!!