BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Writing an 18 page paper for an 8th Grade assignment due two weeks after it is assigned is right

Thanks for the debate, massvideogamer. Best of luck! The education system in the USA is actually very laid back compared to the rest of the world to the point that it's laughed at by many for its ridiculousness. I could write an eighteen-page report in a single night when I was in eighth grade, so I am not sure what your point is here. You obviously are not working like crazy, as you state, if you have time to initiate and engage in three debates on this site. I am more inclined to believe that you and your classmates are lazy and poor at managing your time. In fact, I get the impression that you want someone to do it for you. It's a common trait in many of today's youth. You have such a sense of entitlement, but you haven't earned such. STOP DEBATING AND DO YOUR REPORT FIRST!
All Animals should be given the rights to enjoy there natural environment

your question was animals in general not zoo animals. I think you have asked the wrong question l as you argument now is just on zoo animals. I can agree that some zoo animals would be happier outside of the zoo but you should think of the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. 1) zoos rescue animals.that would not survive in the wilderness 2) zoos raise awareness and funds about endangered species and are one of the few communities that do an amazing job preserving the animals in the wilderness outside and inside the zoo. 3) zoos inspire children to save the animals. would you ever debate this had you not been taken to a zoo? zoos can really bang out the inner love for animals and people's careers to save animals was launched because of those caged animals. now I want to remind everyone that the question was all animals so my arguments outside of zoos still stand.
All Animals should be given the rights to enjoy there natural environment

Good day my dear friend, I felt it so much for not replying you as I have forfeited round 2 because my internet was faulty but thank God I have fix it now. 1. Capturing animals is cruel, period. Animals have their own rights, and they have their own lives in the wild. Capturing them destroys their routines and their way of life. For example elephants travel long distances in the wild in large groups that is their way of life. When elephants are in a zoo, they can"t travel long distances, in fact, the amount they can move can barely be named as worthy of travel. 2. Moreover, animals that are confined to the zoo suffer from negative psychological effects due to the confinement. It doesn"t really matter how good the facilities of the zoo are, or how much space the animal has for itself, it will still not be comparable in any way to the freedom they would have in the wild. 3. Furthermore, animals that are born in zoos and confined to their boundaries their whole life never get to see their natural habitat, and never get to live life like they should be living it. This is something that can be noticed by their abnormal behavior, since they"re not where they should be " it is not natural for them. If these animals ever get released to the wild for any reason, they will have an extremely difficult time adapting to their natural habitat, because they had absolutely no former experience of it. They were taken care of all their lives, and now have to provide for themselves, something they are not used to. 4. Regarding education in zoos, although they do provide a lot of it, most of us go to the zoo as a way to spend time and for recreational purposes. No one really goes visit the zoo with the same mentality people visit the museum with. Moreover, some visitors actually don"t care about the well-being of animals, and many of them actually abuse them by throwing them objects, teasing them, yelling at them, and so on. This kind of behavior has an extremely negative effect on animals, and it can often result in psychological damage to animals, and sometimes it can even prove to be fatal. Animals caged in zoos aren"t able to exhibit their natural behavior as they should, and teasing them will greatly damage their self-confidence and their comfort in the zoo itself.
All Animals should be given the rights to enjoy there natural environment

While it would be nice to allow animals to roam free, it is not logical in today's society. 1) Animals spread disease2) Humans Eat Meat3) The Ecosystem can no longer support it.I am going to make a few assumptions in order to make this argument valid. the first one is you want humans to live and not go into the stone age. Or else how can you log on to debate.org? The second is that you value human life over animal life. Those "Fillthy Animals?"Antrhax, Rabies, Hydatiosis(worms), Leptopirosiss, the black plague... Just to name a few disesas are some wonderful gifts from ou animal friends. Allowing animals to have a right to roam around in their natural environment left alone to romp around with no human intervention will just set us up for a battle of survival against diseseas. Animal control and monitoring allows us to prevent diseases such as these from spreading and becoming a major issues in the human world.
All Animals should be given the rights to enjoy there natural environment

Good day ladies and gentle,I am debating on the topic "All Animals should be given the right to enjoy there natural habitat" and I am for the motion. However, before I go further I would like to give the meaning of important words on this topic,and I will like to start with the meaning of 'Animals". Animals are a living organism which feeds on organic matter,typically having specialized sense organ and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. In actual fact animals are creatures
Abortion

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb. The concept of personhood is different from the concept of human life. Human life occurs at conception, but fertilized eggs used for in vitro fertilization are also human lives and those not implanted are routinely thrown away. Is this murder, and if not, then how is abortion murder?
Youtube should be monitored

"If anything, small children should go on Zuitube, one of the few websites that is kid-friendly and monitored." I agree, but Youtube should not have to deny millions of users good videos because of lack of parental control. "If children hear cursing on the Internet, they will start to experiment themselves." This is irrelevant, you have yet to explain how the burden and responsibilty of keeping a child from being exposed to innappropriate videos rests on Youtube and their users rather than the parents. Children can also accidently look of pornography online, should pornography then be banned? I don't mind having "clean" versions of "innappropriate videos being posted for children but the innappropriate version should stay. Again, a parent can easily lock the computer, block certain websites, and supervise their child when they go online. The responsibility of a child's well being rests on the parent, not everyone else. I shouldn't have to watch "clean" versions of videos that eliminate cursing because of the "innappropriate" versions being banned. I shouldn't have to watch Clark Gable at the end of Gone With the Wind say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a DARN", because parents nowadays are too irrisponsible or are too lazy to lock Youtube from children. You also failed to address the fact that many things can harm children. Kids can take dangerous medical drugs and get seriously ill or sick, but according to your logic, it'd be more reasonable to ban anti-biotics, insulin, aspirin, and other various other life saving drugs because the burden of responsibilty rests on the Pharmacuetical corporations rather than the parents. Children can accidently drive cars and crash and injure themselves or carelessly chase a ball into the street and get hit by a truck, but according to your logic we should ban cars rather than have parents supervise their kids. You not addressed this large fallacy in your logic and you have not given any good reasons as to why the responsiblity to keep children from being exposed to something potentially dangerous rests on Youtube rather than the parents. The quality of Youtube should not have to be compromised for the sake of lazy and irresponsible parenting. Because if it should be then there is no reason why cars, medicine, kitchen knives, plastic tubs, should remain legal and unregulated since all of them are able to hurt kids a hell of a lot more than any youtube video.
Youtube should be monitored

I like your points. Since this is my first debate, I'll try to return to as many topics as I can. If children hear cursing on the Internet, they will start to experiment themselves. I do admit that my "friends only" plan would be an utter flop, but if absolutely necessary, clean versions of some videos can be made if requested. Or we could just get people from posting bad videos altogether by creating TV announcements and pamphlets. It really should be easier, but Youtube should only be used when necessary, not just to look up random topics. What I'm trying to say is that the main problem is little kids looking up things without purpose at all. If you are looking for something in particular, chances are you'll find it. If you just look something random up, you might find a video that is inappropriate. If anything, small children should go on Zuitube, one of the few websites that is kid-friendly and monitored.
Youtube should be monitored

"I also can not prove anything"That's too bad, you need proof especially when you are the Instigator and Pro where you accept the Burden of Proof to prove Youtube somehow negatively influences children."Is there a SINGLE misguided teen that has not looked up an inappropriate video on Youtube"Probably not but there probably aren't any teachers, pilots, scientists, military officers, doctors, architects, etc and various other individuals who hold prestigious positions in society that havn't looked up videos on youtube as well that fit your defintion of "inappropriate". "Inappropriate: Any topic your parents have to introduce to you before you know about it. There are many."So explain how a child of around 9 or 10 years of age will be negatively affected if he or she sees an exposed female breast. Or hears adults using curse words. The Burden of Proof to prove that viewing innappropriate material somehow scars a young child so much to the point that they, from then on out, become delinquents all throughout their lives, is all on you.So far your entire position and your arguments are based on mere assertion.You also said, "Youtube has caused the ruin of many great minds and souls"You have yet to prove this statement to be a fact or carry any amount of weight."what about a system where only the friends of the poster can see the eliminated videos?"What about parents taking responsibility for their own children and locking certain websites rather than have a successful corporation that provides a good service most people enjoy eliminate videos that many people wish to see and ruin it for everyone else?Let's say for the sake of argument, viewing exposed sexual organs, hearing profanity, and witnessing acts of violence, somehow turned a kid that was really going to accomplish great things in his life, into a troubled teen and eventually a troubled adult, which you still have yet to prove or even back up.Why does the burden and responsibility of keeping a child from being exposed to that kind of material rest on Youtube and the billions around the world who enjoy Youtube and not the adults raising the child?Why do videos millions enjoy have to be banned for the sake of children when the people raising those children can just as easily put a password on their computer or watch what the child does on the computer?That's like saying we should ban everything that can potentially harm children because what you are saying is that the responsibility of a child's well being, no longer rests on the parent.Guns can harm children, but instead of having parents keep guns locked in safes, we should ban guns.Cars can harm children, but instead of parents keeping their car keys from children or keep their children from playing in streets, we should ban cars.Medical drugs can harm children, but instead of parents keeping medical drugs locked up in a bathroom or kitchen cabinet, medical drugs should be bannedAnd now you claim that the Youtube videos can harm children, but rather than have parents lock their computer, lock youtube, or supervise their children when they go online, Youtube videos should be banned.
Youtube should be monitored

Well, once you get bad data in your head, it STAYS! I also can not prove anything, but take a look around! Is there a SINGLE misguided teen that has not looked up an inappropriate video on Youtube. And if they keep looking stuff up, they stay led only by videos posted by random people unknown to them. I think you have given some excellent points, but I have a couple good ones as well. what about a system where only the friends of the poster can see the eliminated videos? that could work out quite well. Inappropriate: Any topic your parents have to introduce to you before you know about it. There are many.
Youtube should be monitored

"Youtube is an IMMENSELY bad influence on children who automatically look up random topics on the internet"Prove it."All videos going into Youtube should be monitored, and if necessary, eliminated or censored to people with bypass passwords, such as friends or subscribers to the person posting the video"Why? Your only reason to do this is based on a mere assertion you made claiming Youtube is a bad influence on children and that children are likely to look up life scarring videos."Youtube has caused the ruin of many great minds and souls"Prove it. Prove that a child who was destined to become the scientist who cured cancer, or the first human to land on Mars, or the inventor of the air powered car, or any other great accomplishment had their souls and lives ruined by innappropriate videos on youtube.I'd also like to know what my opponent defines as "innappropriate."
Youtube should be monitored

Youtube is an IMMENSELY bad influence on children who automatically look up random topics on the internet. All videos going into Youtube should be monitored, and if necessary, eliminated or censored to people with bypass passwords, such as friends or subscribers to the person posting the video. this can take away the stress of remembering an inappropriate video or a video of a topic the child should not be accustomed to. Youtube has caused the ruin of many great minds and souls, and should not continue without proper monitoring.
Youtube should be monitored

"But what if parents come to a situation where the children are not supervised. At sleepovers, being home alone, and even sitting by yourself in your room can prove to be an excellent example" Parents can ask the parents of a sleepover to supervise their kids or if looking up videos on youtube that are "innappropriate" is such a big deal then they can keep their kids from going on sleepovers. Millions of people who enjoy videos on youtube that YOU define as "innapropriate" should not have to go without those videos for the sake of a child's sleepover simply because there is the slight risk that the child might go on Youtube without parental supervision. In the case the child is homealone the parents can simply put a lock on the computer of a lock on Youtube. Children old enough who are too independent to rely on their parents don't need protection from "inappropriate" videos. And in the case that they do all the parent has to do is put a lock on Youtube. Youtube shouldn't have to spend money to be monitered in any way since you have no proven that viewing violence or cursewords somehow causes significant harm to children. If parents don't like the risk of their children viewing videos they don't approve of on youtube all they have to do is block youtube. You initially said that innappropriate videos should be banned and now you agree that it is the parents responsibility to monitor youtube themselves. You have gradually given up your original stance. Parents are already able to decide online which sites are and aren't appropriate, therefore Youtube does not need monitoring. In conclusion my opponent agrees it is the parents job to monitor online videos for themselves. My opponent has never brought forth proof or even evidence that Youtube has ever destroyed a young childs life and my opponent has never made a legitimate reason while she held her original stance that Youtube should take it upon themselves to monitor videos rather than the parents of the child themselves.
Youtube should be monitored

You're absolutely right. Parents should supervise their children more closely instead of the kids getting into trouble on their own. You have excellent reasons. But watching a lot on Youtube myself, I have come across some things I couldn't have explained if I tried. But what if parents come to a situation where the children are not supervised. At sleepovers, being home alone, and even sitting by yourself in your room can prove to be an excellent example. A question for you: How can you supervise older children when they are too independent to rely on parents to monitor websites? And life-saving drugs should be kept away by responsible parents and adults. Everything you said is true, but responsibility is the key. Youtube should be monitored in a chosen way, like options on a keypad. Parents can decide online whether not to allow their children to see videos deemed inappropriate, or allow them to watch all videos listed. This method could change everything! I promise that was my final change to my original plan. Thank you for listening (reading) my arguments.
Jack Nicholson is the best actor of all time

1. Jack Nicholson is a very versatile actor, however that does not make him the greatest actor. 2. I have not seen anything related to imdb and rotten tomatoes which determines that he is the consensus for greatest actor. I have only seen fan based lists which have him ranked as such. I have not seen any comments made by Harrison Ford or Johnny Depp so citations please. 3. The Academy Award Association is not a real thing. It does not exist. Please include a link to this survey. 4. Once again, some of these numbers are not correct please cite. Now that that is out of the way. The greatest Actor of all time is Meryl Streep. If you are only considering male actors then it is Daniel Day Lewis. Here are Meryl Streep's accolades 1. She has received 17 Oscar Nominations, 5 more than Nicholson. (Cite: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com...) 3 Oscar Wins, same as Nicholson (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 2 Bafta Award wins, 14 nominations (Id.) Less wins, but more nominations than Nicholson. 2 Emmy Awards, 3 Nominations (Id.) More than Nicholson 8 Golden Globe Wins, 27 Nominations, > than Nicholson 5 Grammy Award Nominations > than Nicholson 2 Screen Actor Guild Awards, 13 Nominations, >than Nicholson 1 Tony Award Nomination. > than Nicholson. She has been in character pieces and comedies and has won awards for her portrayals in both. Nicholson cannot stack up to Streep in awards. Daniel Day Lewis Daniel Day Lewis' credentials are also extremely good, he has won 3 best actor academy awards. The first male ever Jack Nicholson has been in 65 movies. http://en.wikipedia.org... and has won 3 Oscars and has been nominated 12 times. Daniel Day Lewis has been in 19 movies has won 3 Oscars and has been nom. 5 times. wiki. Based on this knowledge. Lewis has won an Oscar 15% of his Roles. Nicholson has 5% wins.
Jack Nicholson is the best actor of all time

I'll tell u why Nicholson is the best actor of all time: 1. He is a versatile actor and has done comedy,serious,psychotic and mind blowing horror and thriller roles (The Shining and One flew over the cuckoos nest) 2. He has voted no.1 by imdb, Rotten tomatoes and actors like Johnny Depp and Harrison Ford who themselves are great actors of all time. 3. The Academy Award Association(AAA) did a survey of seeing who is the best actor of all time. They took 3 years to complete this. First they said that Humphrey Bogart( actor Casablanca) is the greatest actor of all time but then they chose the greatest actor of all time Jack Nicholson as it. 4. He is tied for receiving 3 academy awards with 12 nominations(All time record), BAFTA awards-4(2nd all time record,BAFTA nominations-8(Tied for third all time record), Golden globe-6(All time record, 2nd position 3 awards) and the Golden globe nominations-17(. 2nd all time record). And if you disagree tell me that in your opinion who is the best actor of all time and don't say that there have been many actors and it is difficult to choose one cause if the AAA can choose it then why can't you? -Abir Bliss
Jack Nicholson is the best actor of all time

Dear potential voter, I know what your thinking. What kind of person debates a topic that clearly is personal opinion. I agree. However, with a devil may care grin, I am ready to eviscerate opponents closing, like a slap chop. Slap 1: Opponent says "that awards don't make a great actor[,] their skills and role difficulties do." Ok, but if that's how you feel, why did a majority of your argument consist of a list of awards Nicholson has won? Can we discard that information? Slap 2: I asked for citations of opponents argument that he was basing off of quotes and other people. None were supplied, instead he placed quotation marks around what he was saying. Neither quote as provided exists. Slap 3: There IS a thing called AAA, however, it is the American Automobile Association. There is also an Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, however, it was not referenced by opponent. Final Slap: I am going to be quite frank here. Opponent is disrespecting me and this website and any person who has the unfortunate luck to read our writings. If opponent wanted to discuss why he personally felt that Nicholson was the best, that would be great. However, he didn't. Plagiarism is lazy and rampant on the internet and he is continuing that scary trend. Now onto my closing: Lewis has had more difficult and more varied roles than Nicholson; therefore he has greater skills than Nicholson and is a better actor. Lewis has played: Abraham Lincoln, one of histories most famous presidents; A gay man in an interracial relationship; A gentleman with cerebral palsy who could only use his left foot; a white adopted Indian during the French Indian War; a wrongfully convicted IRA prisoner; the lead in the film adaptation of the age of innocence; A gang leader in 1800's NYC; and finally, an Oil tycoon in the 1920's. This work is more difficult and varied than Nicholson and based on opponents logic, this makes Lewis a better actor. Vote 4 me, because I actually made an effort.
Jack Nicholson is the best actor of all time

The first thing is that I was talking about actors. Second, that awards don't make a great actor their skills and role-difficulty do and Daniel Day-Lewis has won only 3 Oscars and has got 5 nominations. that on imdb and on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Also, Johnny Depp on Jack Nicholson-" He(Jack Nicholson) can not be compared with me as I am nowhere as good an actor as him." Harrison Ford-" Jack Torrance( Jack Nicholson's name in The shining ) is the greatest actor ever! There is a thing as the AAA and if you don't know about it how can you say it doesn't exist Now I hope everyone is convinced that Jack Nicholson is the greatest actor on Earth due to his Versatility, Role difficulty and his skills and fan following. The things you wrote were a total waste. I rest my case and hopefully you all vote for me. Thank you all.