BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
goerge bush was a good president

George Bush was one of america greatest leaders in American History he did many things 1. He passes massive tax relief for the american people because they needed and that setted off huge job growth for many years he greatly stimulated the economy 2. He freed Iraq took out a very bad man and leader 3. He greatly wiped out al queda and the taliban 4. He worked hard to stop the econmic collaspe 5. he tried to reform socil sercuirty and add life to it 6. he reformed immigration with more security at the border and guest worker program 7. he made america more safe 8. the econmy was booming under him 9. he passed the clean air act that cleaned the air 10. he reformed medicare making it better for millions of seniors with a prescription drug benefit 11. he passed the largest education reform act the no child left behind act
Allowing assult rifles

Who needs an assult rifle? Guns are a great thing, but they are also causing many unwanted and tragic deaths in the world. In aurora CO., the attacker used assult rifles to kill and injure dozens. Imagine if he only had a pistol or hunting rifle, much less damege would have been done. In the case of self defence, a home invader can easily be stopped with one pistol, or a shotgun, these can scare off or kill multiple people at once. So why do we need assult rifles? If by rare chance our government became controlling amd tyranical, there is always a way to get weapons either from overseas or from many who will still keep and hide assult rifles, and defecting militia members. So why do we need assult rifles?
Animals should not be kept in a zoo

I would like to take note of the fact that the opponent has decided to post more evidence in the final round, thus I can only assume this is a rebutall and summary round. Let's begin:"Animals are just as important as humans" - No evidenceI agree that it is mean to torture animals and it certainly isnt neccesary. But god says that animals have been put on earth for the sole purpose of serving and pleasuring us for our uses. Animals have no sould and in no majjor religion do animals go to heaven. To reiterate in a non-religious manner, animals have little to no self awareness, nor can they descern right from wrong. They dont and cant care about us or our lives and thus they deserve no rights. How would I feel? I would feel happy. Zoos provide constant food, love and training to their animals. In the wild I would be scared because someone could poach me or another animal could kill me in a terrible way. In the zoo you are safe and you have love and affection given every day. Remember that most pets in the zoos are raised from birth in captivity and thus even if they could feel remorse from their 'familes', which they cant, they wouldnt, because their families are already in the zoo with them. Animals are certainly not caring creatures. Exceptions include dogs and cats but most everyother animal is not 'caring'. try making a hungry shark feel bad for you. .. So what should we do if pro is right? give rocks and houses rights? How about computers that we program to interprit words and talk to us, or ones we program to talk? Agreeing with this is like agreeing that snails, snakes, spiders and ants all deserve rights. The only reason that pro believes animals have rights is because they cry. Pro is doing a very human thing in feeling sorry for animals and personifying them however one could feel bad for a clock given the right storry line. Neither feeling bad for something nor the fact that an animal can feel pain demonstrates that they deserve any form of rights. As pro conceeded the burden of proof was on him and he has utterly failed to prove anything or to provide evidence in support of his case. The resolution is copletely unaffirmed and I thank anyone who wasted, I mean took the time to read this entire debate. Thank you all one again and I rest my case.
Animals should not be kept in a zoo

Animals should not be kept in zoos. A zoo is the equivalent of a prison. Imagine being imprisoned for no reason whatsoever. Humans and animals deserve freedom. Animals are just as important as humans. Zoos such as tweedle have been careless and thoughtless. In 2010, a CAPS undercover investigator filmed sick animals left untreated and dead animals to rot on floors at Tweddle Farm Zoo. This healthcare is unexceptable. Imagine being ill You know someone could help but they didn't It could have all been prevented But you were left for dead How would you feel? Now, if you were an animal that was used to playing in the open, with your family. You were taken somewhere without your say in it. You family have been separated and you are taken to a place that is overcrowded and small. You are alone and all you have are your memories. You then fall ill after a month of living there. You are left to suffer. The torture gets too much and you need help! Your crying takes you bed every night. How would you feel? Animals are born into this world, some are born at the same time as us. Many are treated like garbage. Animals should be treated with the same respect as a human being. They are smart in their own way, and they are always caring and loving to everyone regardless of their actions. They definitely deserve more human-like rights in this cruel world to make up what has been done to them. Humans and animals are very much alike. For example, we both are intelligent. Humans are homo sapiens, the wise man. We can think and reason to our great advantage. There are many definitions of intelligence, but generally it is thought to be the ability to think, reason, plan, assess, and learn. However, humans are not the only animals with intellect, nor are they the best in all its categories. Animals like birds easily outdo humans with both visual searching and geometric recognition. Animals estimate and predict things that are going to happen accurately. They analyse/sense to see if things are dangerous or not. They can calculate things like amount and weight of food. Big mammals like elephants use arithmetic. This is just one link between humans and animals. This shows animals and humans are very much similar. Furthermore, I reccomend you look up what a rock and a twig is because animals are not at all like these. Please put proof in your arguments because you can't tell me to do that when you are not doing it yourself. Therefore animals should not be kept in zoos, thankyou
Animals should not be kept in a zoo

If you were here professing that rocks and twigs deserve rights, I would call you a madman. Animals can be seen in the same way. Like rocks an animal has no soul, and only a soul begets rights. Most importantly animals aren't concious and cannot Think or be self aware for the most part, thus like a rock or a rmountain, they have no rights. So far you haven't proven that animals are any different than rocks, animals will consistently attack people without regret and even unprovoked, they don't care about us or our imagined rights because in their head all they care about is eating, sleeping and reproducing . I say that if we give rights to monkeys and tigers we then Must give rights to spiders and ants. The real reason that you want to give rights to animals is because they make you feel bad. Animals can feel pain, it's true, and when you see an animal cry or experience pain, you feel bad thus giving you the impression that they are somehow people or people in the body of animals. I'm sorry to tell you that animals feel pain but that doesn't mean that they are people. To be honest you haven't proven much in your entire speech. You have told me I am disgusting and stupid however this staunch cockiness doesn't help prove your point in the slightest, and in fact your lack of evidence shows how little you have to prove your case. You have failed to prove your point or even fulfill your burden of proof. I Agree with you on this point and none of my arguments reflect my personal opinion however I am disappointed in your argumentation, I wanted to see your points on the matter and see how you can hold up to basic arguments but to me you seem to have flopped in this debate. A lot of people would agree with the points I made even though I don't and even to someone who agrees with you on this topic I don't believe you have upheld the resolution. Thank you
Animals should not be kept in a zoo

Animals are in this world. We are all equal. We all live in one world. We should respect each other. There is no point in proving it because if you had a brain you should work it out for yourself thus if you think humans are more important than the inoccent animals then you disgust me. What have animals ever done wrong they are living and are vulnrable. Animals have the capability to learn and from what arguement you gave you are incapable of learning. Animals are living and deserve the right to live. Us cruel humans have captured and inslaved these poor creatures. Humans can speak, walk,think. Now we will look at animals: They can communicate, They can walk, run and think. Humans and animals are similiar and just are unique in there own ways. Humans have rights and I have showed animals are equal to us. This means animals too deserve rights.Zoos violate these rights by taking away their freedom and natural environment.To prove that animals suffer depression, overcrowding in enclosures may lead to filth and fighting for territory, resulting in injury to the weaker animals. It also may limit animal movement and physi-cal activities within the cage. The animals reacted negatively to harassment from the visitors and showed signs of depression. Passivity and anger, especially inlarge animals, may be associated with a lack of food variety. Depression and ste-reotypical behaviors in large animals were noted when their need to mate was un-met or delayed. To be taken away from the wild and its family, increases the depression and anxiety. They deserve to live in the wild. If you disagree, why don't you live in a cage?Now, you have not stated your arguement. You have only asked me to prove what everyone knows is right. Please elaborate in your next speech.
Animals should not be kept in a zoo

As you are the affirmative and are challenging the norm, I accept with the the understanding that the burden of proof is on you. Thus I ask you to prove that animals deserve rights, that zoos violate those rights and that the violation of those rights causes real negative impacts which outweigh any of the positive impacts. You have made statement like zoos cause depression however you have provided no proof for this statement. Please elaborate in your next speech.
Animals should not be kept in a zoo

In this argument, I shall breifly clarify why it is morally wrong to keep animals in a zoo. People might see them as a threat or something else in their eyes. However, they still deserve equality like the humans have. Even humans are a threat- everyone of them around us- there is no telling what they would do. Do you go ahead and lock every person up for public entertainment?It's not right to keep them in captivity, they're living things as are we. They were born as animals and deserve to live a life as we do. They have to be free. They are born in the wild and that is where they should live. People may very well say that they're enclosure is similar to their natuaral habitat. It is not the same though. The atmosphere, the smell, the other animals and their instinct to survive is not there. They all have their suvival techniques and have all their skills in the wild. We are taking that priviledge away. We want this world to be civilised. Why are you proving the opposite?People should leave these poor animals in peace. We should respect them and not take them from their home and family. These animals are part of our world. We should all live as one. No one has the right to rule over one another, whether it is human or animal. At the moment, the humans are proving selflessnes and cruelty.Wild animals are majestic and fascinating. How can you expect them to be majestic when they are locked up and being constantly disturbed by shouting children. They are not the same in a little zoo. If you want to see an animal at its best, take it to its natural habitat.If you think that someone can just lock an animal away for educational purposes, lets see how they like it and then the animals can learn how selfish that person is.An animal has rights. An animal has feelings. Imagine the animals trying to pull away from a tight rope around it's neck. Imagine them being dragged into a tiny crate at the back of a van. Imagine that animal's family watching it all happen.It makes them sad and depressed. All they ever want to do is get out of that place and go home to its family. Animals deserve their freedom and deserve their life back. Do you really want this happening to them? There are many wars and conflict in this world. Now, this world is taking a step up to stupidity and making conflict with animals.
The Decision of Lawrence v. Texas Is Incorrect

The Supreme Court of the United States's decision of Lawrence v. Texas (2003) is incorrect.Neither the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a valid justification for the case's decision. The Due Process Clause guarantees procedural due process of law, not substantive due process of law, and the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the equal enforcement of the laws, not the equal content of the laws. "Increase Sexual Liberty" Facebook post, https://www.facebook.com..., posted Mar. 27, 2017, visited Jul. 11, 2017.Furthermore, if the decision was correct, then at least one valid argument in support of the decision would have been provided in the case's opinion. No valid argument in support of the decision, however, was provided in the opinion. Id. Therefore by modus tollens, the decision is not correct.
The Decision of Lawrence v. Texas Is Incorrect

I care, and I'm not a heterosexual. I am not concerned the "horrible, discriminatory" law got nullified; I am concerned about how it got nullified. There is no genuine legal avenue through which the law could have been nullified. The Supreme Court cheated. The Supreme Court itself broke the law. I agree the law was discriminatory. But that alone is not sufficient legal justification to nullify the law. As I previously mentioned, the Equal Protection Clause, which was wrongly used as legal justification to nullify the law, guarantees the equal enforcement of the laws and does not guarantee the equal content of the laws. This paragraph gives an example of the Equal Protection Clause. If a state had a law that prohibited all black people from attending college, that state may not violate the Equal Protection Clause. But if the state had the law and only enforced it upon all black people 35 years old or older, that state would violate the Equal Protection Clause.
America is the Greatest Nation

I personally identify as a very patriotic America, I love this country to the point where I would be willing to lay down my life for it but I can not allow my patriotism to blind me from what I see as the truth that America is no longer the greatest nation. The land once known to the world as a promised land of opportunity, Plethora's of success stories from dirt poor to riches achieved through hard work were spoken throughout the land and our country unified itself in making great changed from stomping racism out and achieving true equality, Booming in economics taking the world stage as the biggest manufacture and producers of goods and eventually achieving the largest world economy, Truly a wonderful time it was to be in America and it is indeed still an amazing country, I would want to live no where else yet I see the fabric of this country being torn to pieces. Unity. . . The United States of America, We the People, America seems so deeply divided with political affiliations and a complete disregard to hear out the other sides opinion with many allowing ignorance to take their hand in voting for candidates simply based off party not what they stand for. It seems that all people and politicians do is argue, Complain and blame one another, The moral fabric of great people who held principles closer then party and morals above greed and power hungriness of fallen prey to the sad bureaucracy the American government has become. Even so with increasing civil unrest many Americans so arrogantly chant patriotism and nationalism as the same, They preach of how great our country is yet refuse to recognize that on most charts America is failing despite our great economic power we can not seem to balance a budget and we keep a military prepared for another invasion as seen in World War 2 refusing to recognize the greatest modern threats are from nuclear missiles and cyber warfare, Our nation is well. . . Stuck in a deep pit of division and our government as put by President Trump is a "swamp" one of which he has done little to remedy.
America is the Greatest Nation

Thank you for this debate, CON. It's as if we're debating in a virtual war zone with glitches flying about like shrapnel. That's nothing to us though. The fact of the matter is that when anyone says "greatest country", Everyone knows they are talking about the USA. That's because Americans are the only people who ever speak like that. Suppose I was 4 years old and said, "my daddy is the greatest daddy in the world! " Aw. That's adorable! Wouldn't you just agree with me? And what if my Daddy lost his job and gambled away the house and then punched a stranger in a drunken rage. He's still the greatest daddy, Isn't he? The greatest of all the daddies? He sure is. And similarly I can say to you that the USA is still the greatest country of all the countries.
Video games are making children more violent in nature.

When you talk about the purchasing of video games and having age restrictions on them, I must say I agree. Many stores have made it so that ID must be shown at the till when games are rated 12 and over making children below the age unable to buy the game. Especially with Modern Warfare and Grand Theft Auto being rated at 18, clearly meaning that the game is intended for an adult audience. However when it comes to Christmas and Birthdays these games are actually wished for by the child and are purchased widely around the world during these peak times of the year. A parent has the ability to buy these games for their child and so the fact that the age restrictions are there year round becomes invalid. Children are still able to obtain the games and play them; it may be at the help of their own family and parents, but the fact that younger children (as young as 11) are still online playing these games with other people. From playing games at such a young age these children are in fact exposing themselves to violence, gore and explicit language -as these games have a tendency to swear during the cinematic and narrations. The fact of the matter is that these children are still getting given these games as a gift counting the age restrictions are useless.
Video games are making children more violent in nature.

I will be arguing as I disagree with this statement. As a person who has played many video games from a young age, I myself have experienced what children go through these days. I would like to start off with making a point about the age rating system for electronic products such as films and video games. The game rating authority was set up in order to prevent products with a mature rating from reaching people of a younger age. This is so violent content is hidden and kept away from the eyes of the younger generation. There are laws enforcing the age rating system, in which stores are not allowed to sell video games to people younger than the age stated upon the product, otherwise they are breaking the law. So games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty which are 18 rated products, shouldn't even be in the living rooms of people younger than that age.
Video games are making children more violent in nature.

I believe that video games are shaping many children in a negative way. This is mainly because of games like modern warfare and grand theft auto (purely as an example here). These games -and ones of a similar genre- are introducing violence to a much younger audience than the intended target market of the games. The competitive side to these games and their harsh and explicit nature is teaching children to be a lot more violent towards one another: Even though this is not the specific aim of the game.
Forfeiting without explanation is a conduct violation in DDO

I have a debate to which someone accepted the challenge, made a brief statement in which the contender announced s/he would be taking a position which was not responsive to the question proposed for debate. Subsequently the contender forfeited the next two rounds. Clearly by his or her conduct the Contender disapproves of the debate topic and accepted the challenge to keep the debate from going forward. Now the topic is quite probably not a very good one and if that is the case such a factor should be considered in evaluating a participant's forfeiting. Another argument I will make in regard to this is if the Contender enters a debate in bad faith as demonstrated by his or her either not posting an argument that is forfeiting or posting something which clearly fails to address the topic-- then I think the Instigator should have the option to cancel the debate. There is already the option available to the Instigator to disqualify a Contender from further debates which the Instigator starts. In fact I believe that is a more effective penalty And thank you for offering this topic for debate.
Forfeiting without explanation is a conduct violation in DDO

Suppose I disdain your argument about defending trolling, does that justify my forfeiting this debate? No, it doesn't. The best way to handle a troll debate is to ignore them and go ahead with with you were going to do in the first place. Just look at the vi_spex debates. He has lost most of them due to his troll arguments. As for the criteria for instigator to cancel a debate, it would require programming from Juggle which I don't see anytime soon. Plus, it would be hard for a bot to do so. A debate moderation team could sanction it, but isn't it better to win against the troll rather than delete the debate itself? This was a good debate, or as you put it, discussion.
Forfeiting without explanation is a conduct violation in DDO

With regard to the Instigator being allowed to cancel a debate where the Contender is acting in bad faith there would have to be some criteria which would need to be met for the Instigator to cancel the debate. Here the only criteria which would need to be met is the simple fact the Contender has refused to participate after accepting the challenge. Participating badly or trolling in other ways wouldn't qualify. As I write my argument I find myself going off on argument about trolling and defending it in some ways. I understand it to have a rather negative connotation but I do not believe in practice that is universally true. That is in the sense trolling is always bad. Speaking of trolling you mentioned a response to the tactic under debate would be to deny it is a troll tropic. But what if it is but nonetheless could still be debated within the prescribed boundaries.? I have participated on a number of boards and forums and have moderated a couple of them. From both my experience and from what I have read the best and most effective way to deal with obnoxious trolls is to ignore them and not engage in questionable tactics yourself. To me the anti-trolls, which I will contend is itself a form of trolling, can be as annoying as the trolls. I suspect this has been more of a discussion than a debate but I hope at least in some ways it has been constructive. Oh you spoke of voting on here. I have been learning about it having had a couple of my votes rejected. What I have seen of the process it seems quite fair Perfect spilling again. At least I might win that one