BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Hunting of Gray and Harbor Seals

Again, sooo sorry for the forfeit. :'(Fishermen aren't the only 'predators' in the wild. Humans cannot massacre everything that they deem is in their way. Period. The gray seal is a protected species under Annex ll and Annex V of the EC (European Community) habitat directive. Increasing levels of pollution, including oil spills are causing acute respiratory problems and general sickness amoung the gray seal population. Also, seals are getting killed off a lot already. It is estimated that more seals get caught in England's monkfish nets than the amount of seals born there each year. The fishing industry is not sustainable at this point in time. Too many fish are being fished, depleting the 'supply' of fish in the ocean and causing many other organisms to starve because of lack of food. Unless the current situation improves, stocks of all species currently fished for food are predicted to collapse by 2048. Lastly, and I know this is a purely emotional point, they're pretty cute. Seal populations may attract more tourists, there are seal observation beaches all over the world, and people love to see these cute little seals. It is also popular for artists, so they can paint the seals. This increases touristing, and thus helps the economy. Now, I am not drastically opposing hunting, I think it must be HEAVILY regulated. People should not be allowed to go out and shoot seals to vent anger whenever they want. Some population control may be necessary in the future, but we don't want it to go in the opposite direction of near-extinction for the seals, do we?Another point, fish is not a necessary part of a human diet. Every vitamin, mineral, and nutrient found in fish can be gotten eat from an alternative food. http://ec.europa.eu...;http://savesandiegoseals.com...;http://wwf.panda.org...;
The Hunting of Gray and Harbor Seals

Okay then. since my opponent never responded I'll just restate my plan. Harm: Too many seals Too many seals are breeding in the wild, therefore eating all the fish, and if seals eat all the fish it impacts the fishing businesses which eventually impact our economy. Plan: Change the current system In our plan we will have the United States Federal government allow the public to catch some of the gray/harbor seals, trade them with other countries, and make new about the ways people can hunt and catch the seals. We should be allowed to reduce the population of seals because seals are eating a lot of the fish, reducing the amount that we humans can eat. Advantage 1: Less seals eating less fish. When we reduce the amount of seals, less seals can eat less fish, allowing the fishing companies to have more fish. Because of the amounts of seals it will eventually hurt the fishing businesses. Advantage 2: We will be allowed to trade and eat seals. Because of the change in laws, men and woman will be allowed to hunt and trade seals and eat them. Advantage 3: More food overall. Because of our law changes there will be more food overall, eventually helping our economy in different ways. As seen above the changes of laws will help everyone. It will help fishermen, fishing businesses, and everyday citizens.
The Hunting of Gray and Harbor Seals

:) Harm: Too many seals Too many seals are breeding in the wild, therefore eating all the fish, and if seals eat all the fish it impacts the fishing businesses which eventually impact our economy. Plan: Change the current system In our plan we will have the United States Federal government allow the public to catch some of the gray/harbor seals, trade them with other countries, and make new about the ways people can hunt and catch the seals. We should be allowed to reduce the population of seals because seals are eating a lot of the fish, reducing the amount that we humans can eat. Advantage 1: Less seals eating less fish. When we reduce the amount of seals, less seals can eat less fish, allowing the fishing companies to have more fish. Because of the amounts of seals it will eventually hurt the fishing businesses. Advantage 2: We will be allowed to trade and eat seals. Because of the change in laws, men and woman will be allowed to hunt and trade seals and eat them. Advantage 3: More food overall. Because of our law changes there will be more food overall, eventually helping our economy in different ways. As seen above the changes of laws will help everyone. It will help fishermen, fishing businesses, and everyday citizens. 1. . http://www.underwatertimes.com...
A language can be more or less logical than another

I look forward to an insightful, stimulating debate. --- In the words of sociolinguist Max Weinreich, "A language is a dialect with an army and navy. " ("A shprakh iz a dialekt mit an armey un flot. ") [1] The primary distinction between a language and a dialect is political influence. Some languages, such as Danish and Norwegian, are mutually comprehensible, yet still considered separate languages due to their separate political agendas. Therefore, we will start with an example of a disparity in the English language that is strictly dialectal and progress from there: "I didn't eat any dinner. " vs. "I didn't eat no dinner. " [2] The former example represents phrasing that is accepted by Standard English, while the latter example represents phrasing that is accepted by an alternative dialect of English. The forms of these two sentences are different, due to a difference between the words "any" and "no," yet, holistically, both statements are semantically acceptable and, in many contexts, identical. Through the lens of Standard English, the latter contains an ungrammatical double negative. However, based on the grammar of the alternative dialect, the double negative has the same semantic significance as the single negative in the former. Oppositions to prescriptive grammar do not equate to a flaw in logic. In the Russian language, means "I am not doing anything," [3] or we could literally translate it word-for-word "I am not doing nothing. " Again, semantically, "I am not doing anything" and are identical in many contexts, yet the form differs. All language has semantic significance; even paradoxical statements have semantic significance, because their components, though contradictory, have representational meaning. Furthermore, in linguistics, semanticity is a necessary component of language. [4] Through these examples, I have explained how a language cannot be more logical or illogical than another. Though forms vary, statements remain semantically significant and, consequently, logically valid. --- [1] . http://www.economist.com... [2] . http://www.lsadc.org... [3] . http://russian.speak7.com... [4] . http://homepages.rpi.edu...
Refute of Atheistic View: "Absence of Evidence, is Evidence of Absence."

To start off a simple, yes. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence and I want to first come to an important distinction between evidence and proof of something. To have evidence of something doesn"t mean that by this evidence you can prove a certain claim. And therefore also the absence of the evidence doesn"t conclusively prove absence, but bears evidence towards it. While I do agree that the human capabilities are neither perfect nor infallible, they still do provide us with some (I would rather say much) data about our surroundings. If there is certain realm of things that is accessible to our senses they also provide us with the necessary data to evaluate a claim at least to the best of our knowledge. Having the data from a random subset of all possible data, provides us with the ability to say that, if this data shows no sign of a certain claim, it is also less likely for the rest of the full dataset to show it. This just follows from basic probability calculus and is pretty much the definition of evidence. And then we have way more than just the randomly picked subset of data which already you would have this implication of probability calculus but we actually have a dataset that is both large and also encompasses those regions, where we would expect to find a god. This subset goes from the lack of an effect of prayer, to the lack of observable miracles and the diverse believes in different incompatible gods. Therefore we can say even more strongly that the absence of evidence in our particular experience for God is evidence of the absence. To conclude I do not think that it is necessary to believe that humans are infallible to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (we are still way more capable then you put it). Only if it was claimed that you could prove the absence of God by the absence of evidence it would need this belief and therefore I can affirm that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Refute of Atheistic View: "Absence of Evidence, is Evidence of Absence."

"Absence of Evidence, is Evidence of Absence." Do you believe that The One True God that the Jews and Christians believe in, is weakened/disproved by this quote? Then explain this to me please :) Are we not limited creatures in both mental capacity and scientific process? Are our biological bodies and chemically influenced brain processes imperfect? Are you satisfied with your pathetic Earthling technology to make any statement on the existence of a being inside or outside of your dimension/realm? The True Modern Atheist would argue that God is a story, a fable, passed down through generations, interesting and compelling to some, but 'tis a simple book and false testimony nonetheless. Absence of evidence, would be evidence of absence if a being could comprehend ALL information about the subject and somehow using mechanical instruments locate every possible corner of the cosmos including all dimensions and sub-dimensions, as well as the chaotic and ever-rippling colliding dimensions and acquire all knowledge and layers of size/time/space and how to bend/break/manipulate these fundamental laws into showing their viewpoint to be supported. To agree with the quote is to say you are satisfied in both your biological body/mind and scientific instrument's abilities to correctly and completely understand the mysteries of the universe. TL;DR = Humans converse and conduct themselves in many ways beyond the understand of animals, is there not a next tier of being that looks upon our entrenched bickering as futile ram's butting heads?
Naruto is better than DragonBallz

I am going to go over this argument piece by piece."What i meant was you had a point in Dragon ball Z building attachments to the character. that is true. as for the good guy coming to life. Even if i dd rebuttal it my point still stands. Goku the main character always comes back to life after or before every big fight. it doesn't happen i Naruto. Just saying."And you have failed to point out to me where this is a bad thing. So you are saying that because the protagonist of the series fights the bad guys even after death, that the show is crappier than Naruto? What you needed to do was prove to me how this was a bad thing. You have not done that. Thus this point just floats around not really meaning anything."Next, as for the powerful villain's. come on, i just meant more strategist more than Dragon ball Z's. Dragon-ball Z villain;s rush in, because they are too cocky, Naruto gets the schematics before starting a fight."I have addressed this. What does strategy matter when Both fighters can destroy planets with the raising of a finger? Strategy is a human tactic. These characters in dragonball Z are not human. They give the viewers exactly what they want; Action. Now as for his attacks, Goku only uses Instant Transmission, Kamehameha wave, Ki blast, Spirit Bomb, and punches in the newer series. Really this argument again? See above list. Next you go on to provide a list of people who liked the show naruto better.First of all, as admitted to in your quote, these people are die hard naruto fans who don't know nearly as much about Dragonball Z. "That being said I'm nowhere near as hardcore as 99% of people are on this board when it comes to db/z/gt." So these quoted are from people who have not actively watched dragonball Z nearly enough as they had Naruto. Thus this is mildly irrelevant. *****CONCLUSION ***** Along with the many dropped arguments, and the poorly structured rebuttals, the conduct point should be easy on this debate. Also if you haven't noticed by now, my opponents spelling and grammar was rather poor as well, so there is another point. Sources were used mainly by me, until the last round, where my opponent post some random source with a million Japanese posts in it that does not make sense. And finally the convincing arguments point I feel is mine as well. My opponent has not upheld his BOP. He has not proven that NARUTO is better the DBZ. I have shown that statistics on DBZ are much higher than those of Naruto, and that DBZ is much better in it's character development and storyline. I have successfully refuted my opponents points, while he has dropped several of mine; the one he did bring back up in the last rounds, not even really being arguments. Just failed attempts at least trying to touch on them. Thus for all the reasons explained in this debate, I strongly urge that you vote in favor of the CON.Thankyou.
Naruto is better than DragonBallz

What i meant was you had a point in Dragon ball Z building attachments to the character. that is true. as for the good guy coming to life. Even if i dd rebuttal it my point still stands. Goku the main character always comes back to life after or before every big fight. it doesn't happen i Naruto. Just saying. Next, as for the powerful villain's. come on, i just meant more strategist more than Dragon ball Z's. Dragon-ball Z villain;s rush in, because they are too cocky, Naruto gets the schematics before starting a fight. At www.mangafox.com, Naruto is he top read manga, also at www.mangareader.net. Now as for his attacks, Goku only uses Instant Transmission, Kamehameha wave, Ki blast, Spirit Bomb, and punches in the newer series. Therefore Naruto is still a better show than Dragon ball Z. here is what some people had to say about the shows: Which is the better series for you? Horvath: "I personally think Naruto. I think it's much more entertaining and has a deeper plot. Also, when a timeskip occurs, you can see it. At the start of Shippuden, you observe how everyone's changed outwardly and inwardly. Post Android-Training, everyone looks the same, albeit stronger. The character roster is also superior in Naruto in my opinion. Characters like Neji and Kakashi are much more relatable to the viewer than Vegeta or Goku, which I find to be nice because the viewer can become more engaged into the character development and story." Copy_Ninja: "Yeah, I prefer Naruto as well. Partly because DBZ is finished and i've seen the whole thing many times, while Naruto is still ongoing. It's also partly because there's a bit more of a story to it. DB/Z just kind of drifts from one villain to next. Naruto had an overarching story, with each new major villain linking to the last until finally revealing a main guy who's behind it all. There's also the fact of the younger characters, the more heartfelt moments, the fact that there are multiple characters who can make a difference. I think I also prefer Naruto's drawing style as well." Cal: "Naruto (imo) was better because of the hardships in my opinion. I like a shounen anime/manga with tear jerking moments as well as awesome fights and I saw that from episode 1 of Naruto, and still see it today. Plus in Naruto everyone is useful, dbz gets to where it's all about PL and who has a more speed etc. DB was adventure, DBZ was PL, Naruto is in the middle of that to me. That being said I'm nowhere near as hardcore as 99% of people are on this board when it comes to db/z/gt." http://dbzf.co.uk... Vote Pro!!!!1
Naruto is better than DragonBallz

*****FRAMEWORK*****Same as last time.I will go over rebuttals, then go over my case, before wrapping it up in the conclusion.*****REBUTTALS*****LIMITED ATTACKSOh wait a second... My opponent didn't refute ANY of the points he originally made. Interesting. Looks like he just made a list of attacks that are made by his characters. But if I am not mistaken, that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether or not dragon ball z specifically had more than just the moves that Pro stated it did.So please EXTEND all arguments made by the Pro originally.POWERFUL VILLAINS All arguments dropped, please extend.SNOW WHITE SYNDROMAll Arguments Dropped, please extend. *****MY CASE***** C1: Dragon ball Z keeps people's interest. "it does but so does Naruto. if you look at Naruto's ranking, it is within the top 3 of the most popular list. so as for keeping the readers attention, Naruto beats DragonBall Z. Also DragonBall Z is older, therefore it is getting less interesting to the older generation, (me being 19 sees this everyday,) and Naruto is a new thing that has become popular."So since you did not pull up a source for this, I took it upon myself do the research to see if you claim was true.DragonBall Z got an 8.8 viewer rating on IMDB With 19,337 raters, 102 reviews, and 12 paid critics.http://www.imdb.com...Now let's look at Naruto.Naruto got a 7.9 viewer rating on IMDB from 12,317, with 85 reviews, and 10 paid critics.http://www.imdb.com... I think it is safe to say that dragon ball Zs Rating are considerably better given the statistics. C2: Attachment to characters"really can't say much other than the fact that we have seen naruto through all of his hardships and loneliness."This is literally all my opponent said in response to my contention. So we are still left with the fact that characters in this show are built up from over 2-4 hundred episodes. These characters all play major parts in the dragon ball Z saga. The character build up in Naruto does not even come close to this. Hardships and loneliness? The characters in Dragonball Z have to go through hard ships practically all the time as they are on the brink of defeat with only strands of hope left with each new villain. They rely on each other every bit as much, and viewers are able to keep more interest knowing this because they know literally everything about each one of these characters and their past. When the hero's take damage, the viewers feel it as well. Dragonball Z thus is able to attach itself to the emotional Outlet for the characters as well. *****CONCLUSION***** To Conclude, I will give voters.I believe I should win this debate for the following reasons.1. My opponent has dropped every single one of the rebuttals made against his case. 2. My opponent has barely made an attack on any of my contentions. 3. My opponent has not provided any sources for his claims, while I have provided several. I have thus upheld the BOP, while the instigator of the debate has not.Please Vote CON!Thankyou.
Naruto is better than DragonBallz

i say Naruto is better than DragonBall Z because in Naruto they have a lot more action and a more diverse range of attacks. for example, whenever a fight starts you never know who will use what Jutsu, but in DragonBall Z its always Goku's Kamehameha wave or spirit bomb. no differential in attacks. i know Naruto uses Shadow Clones and Rasengan, but he had developed it and changed it greatly. same for Sasukes Chidori. Next reason the villain's are a lot more powerful and more strategist more. for example, Pein. he didn't just charge into Konoha, he looked for Naruto and destroyed the village at the same time. for this reason he is different from Brolly and Frezia. Next the good guys die and stay dead. Goku dies and come back to life over and over. In Naruto the only good guys to do this was Kakashi, (through Pein's change of heart,) The 1st and 2nd Hokage, (due to Orchimaru's dead soul Jutsu,) and Itachi, (due to Kabuto's dead soul Jutsu.)
The circumcision of a minor without medical neccessity should be banned.

More than ethics, I would contend that this a legal issue: ought the secular government impose litigation making circumcision illegal in the USA? Should they impose an ethical law across America, regardless of whether or not they can or will enforce it? (please let me know if you want to at all debate the latter 'practicality' arguments about enforcement or whether this is purely centred on the ethics of circumcision)And also, if using Classical Liberal theory, I would ask you to refer to your theorists directly and cite the page numbers you get your information from so I can follow their reasoning and contest it if necessary.
Apple Is Better Than Android

First let's get some terms and ideas addressed. What do you mean when saying better? Better at what? Are you arguing that the physical apple product the phone itself with its design is better? Are you arguing that the processing of the apple product is better? Are you arguing that the functionality of apple is better (more user friendly)? Are you arguing that apple has better customer service? Please refine your argument, that way there is understanding of what you are actually trying to prove.
In Certain Cases, Censorship is Necessary

I just didn't feel it was necessary to poor too much energy into this debate for your argument is subjective and not factual. 1) Our constitutional rights exist for a reason for our founding fathers new the censorship is PRO tyrant. If this wasn't the case, why is there such emphasis on freedom of speech? Providing information about how it "could - possibly work", does not meant it does work. 2) It is not up the select few individuals or organizations to make decisions for hundreds of millions of people. These organizations serve the people therefor must deliver information to the people. If you argue that they shouldn't be forthcoming with all information you are stand in position of a dictatorship or tyrant government because they emulate these processes. 3) If we were to allow censorship, how and who do we trust with such "sensitive" information. How do we control what they share or don't share? In short, the government does which strips the liberties of the people. Which you cannot refute. I stand on the position in which the power remains in the power of the people, not the Government which you so admiringly support. Your information is subjective in nature and is based on a fallacious argument as my stance is factual. You argument is fallacious due to the fact that these Government(s) only allow you to see what they want you to see, to include ours in the US. What information they decide to release cannot be verified unless all information was delivered in a transparent fashion, which you already prove they do not. Therefore, you argument is subjective and not objective. Whereas, placing information within the hands of the public will provide an overall a higher ethical/moral standing. True, at certain situations the people may be angered and re-act in an unorderly fashion... but having a government controlling what information is released is much higher ethical impacts... For the people would be blind of any truth or knowledge and therefore controlled by their governing body to react or not react in a manner the government feels "within certain sensitive topics". To pull the wool of the eyes of the public in just one topic, is abuse of power and a form of betrayal to the public. The power must remain within the hands of the people.