BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should soldiers torture their prisoners

Now I believe yes for quiet a few reasons. UtilitariansismUtilitariansims states that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... is key here, because say this prisoner is an Al-Qaeda member, his knowledge could contain who certain members are, were their next attack lies, or where their leader is. You see here if we torture one person to save the lives of many we are clearly justified in the amount of lives we save. We could have used torture say before 9/11 and imagain the innocent American lives that we would have saved. All wounds heal. One of the Marine Corps mottos is that "Swet dries, blood clotts, and bones heal. " We can see in this motto that it justifies torture showing that no matter what happens humans will heal.
Zoo's should be banned

"Did I say God created animals? NO" Created presupposes a creator. Zoos in general do not hold entire populations of a species in captivity, so stating they completely usurp natural progression is false. By the way, as humans, and being part of nature, then actions we perform would constitute as natural (it is in our nature to create what we need, we don't have fangs for competition etc., and this includes those items that give us happiness, zoos included). Not allowing an animal species to become extinct whilst in captivity, clearly can have no effect on wild populations, being far removed from interaction between the two. Given that animals do not exist in self contained islands, and the extinction of one species, will affect those species that rely on it as part of its ecosystem, extinction is not inherently beneficial. If allowing a species to die, as you argue, invites others then we have a status quo which preservation maintains anyway.
Zoo's should be banned

Animals are born to be wild. Thankyou for the argument Puck but now I will rebutt. No I didn't decide to start this debate to "prove God" Did I say God created animals? NO. Animals are amazing creatures and to just go with the flow because zoos are trying to preserve animals which is good on some levels but you must let life take its toll. The animals in this world are forever growing and changing but if we let animals be controlled my mother nature and not power seeking humans then the phrase out with the old and in with the new will really take action. Thankyou very much. Eieiobum
Zoo's should be banned

"animals weren't created to be put in zoo's, there weren't zoos 300 years ago and wildlife was great!" If by created you mean a creator, then you have made this debate into (i) proving god (ii) knowing the mind of god in relation to zoos. If that is some equivocation on evolution then evolution itself has no foresight, ideal, greater goal, it's simply the drive for gene replication. Evolution has no position on zoos. True the eldest zoo isn't quite yet 300yrs old (some 40 odd years off) animals were still kept as pets and for various reasons prior. Indeed menageries far precede zoos in themselves, being a precursor too, so the 300yrs line is moot. http://en.wikipedia.org... "animals can take care of themselves more than a completely different species" Clearly the rate and presence of extinction/endangered animals says otherwise which is a general aim of large zoos, breeding programs of endangered species. Animals are not an end to themselves.
Zoo's should be banned

Animals are born to be wild Hello and welcome to this debate. The topic of this debate is that zoo's should be banned. I as the pro side of this debate strongly agree with this topic. The arguments that i will be putting forward today are that. 1. animals weren't created to be put in zoo's, there weren't zoos 300 years ago and wildlife was great! 2. animals can take care of themselves more than a completely different species
Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as much as they are

I will be challenging Jammie to debate this topic.Rules of this debate:1) I think burden of proof would lie on con for this one, to be honest, as they need to prove why pedophiles deserve to be stigmatized. It should be obvious that no one deserves a stigma unless there's a reason for it, so con needs to provide this reason. Thus, con should open up with main arguments in round 1. Since I am not using round 1 for debate, they should waive round 4 to keep the debate rounds used for argument equal between us2) The last round of the debate should just be rebuttal or defense against any previous rebuttals made by your opponent3) No personal insults, ad hominem, or attacks of character of your opponentIf any of the above rules are violated by either side, conduct should go to the one who did not violate the rule or who did so to a lesser degree.Definitions of terms:Pedophile: An adult or older adolescent who has the psychiatric disorder of an attraction to prepubescent children [1] Thus a pedophile should not be mistaken for a child molester, as they are two different things.Stigmatize: Describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval [2]If my opponent has objections to these definitions, state them in the comments section, propose your own definitions, and we can work something out from there.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Pedophiles should not be stigmatized as much as they are

Laws exist in society to keep the nation's populous safe and efficient. However, laws only govern issues that the government see fit to pass into legislation. The rest of the judgement for issues and actions comes from stigmatisation from the populous. For example, infidelity (cheating on spouse or significant other) is not illegal, yet it may as well be, as it is widely and heavily stigmatised by the general populous. Laws and public disapproval exist for a number of reasons, yet the main reason is that acts which conflict with peaceful and harmonious living in society are deemed unacceptable. In the example stated above, the reason that infidelity is frowned upon is that it destroys the family life, and a healthy family is vital for the next generation of workers and members of society. Paedophilia, (I'm from the UK, different spelling) is another issue which destroys the next generation. I'm sure we agree that children are vulnerable, and should be cared for and protected, so why should a desire of sexual activity not be stigmatised? I understand that there is a difference between having thoughts of paedophilia, and actually committing molestation, but why should society accept individuals who have these thoughts and urges? Serial killers are a threat to society, but people do not wait until a mass murder to lock them up and/or treat them. My opening argument boils down to the fact that paedophiles are a danger to society, and even if they do not or will not ever commit a crime, the sexual attraction to children is dangerous and disgusting, and we should be doing every thing as a society to stigmatise and condemn these people, as their thoughts (regardless of action) are dangerous.
there should be less violence in video games

First, my arguments1:Gaming as a medium of artModern gaming has a tendancy of pandering towards a teenage audience: using violence and sex to win over the audience they want (see counterarguments). The problem with this is that it prevents people from taking gaming seriously. No one wants to accept gaming as an art form, no one believes that games can convey emotion or messages, and no one believes that "mature", in reference to video games, can mean anything other than a rating. I am saying this as a teenage male gamer: games should stop trying to put people like me into a box2:Coming under fireYou've heard the argument before: "violent videogames ruin the children", "videogames turn people into mass murderers", "videogames killed my children", etc. It will never go away unless we bite the bullet and stop pushing violence. I personally want people to start taking games seriously, as priorly mentioned, but I don't want them percieved as a threat. I can only assume you feel the same wayCounterargumentsI think there should be more because people like them more then nonviolent games. A lot of people like Zelda, call of duty, anime and a lot more then nonviolent games. I would ask for sources, but let's be real here, neither of us are using sources; most of the things mentioned on both sides, I would think, can be accepted by both sides as fact; as gamers, we both understand these ideas to be true. I have tried to keep numbers out of my own argument to avoid causing too much confusion. Instead, I will ask why that is: why do people tend to like violent games as opposed to nonviolent ones? One of the issues is the AAA games (like Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty) vs. indie games (like minecraft and Don't Starve). AAA is sponsored by heavy budget studios with heavy wallets and large numbers. Indie games are created by "independent developers", which can be stretched, but for all practical purposes just means a small team of friends who just thought it would be fun to create a video game. Because AAA games have larger budgets, they can push their games with advertising campaigns. However, they also don't have much area for originality; because they spend so much money on each project, they can't afford to get a failed project, so they just rehash an old formula: buff guys shooting guns at other buff guys. Indie games usually go with violence as well, to mirror their AAA counterparts. The issues isn't that nonviolent games aren't as good, but that they aren't as well known. What about when they are well done? Undertale, an indie game written by Toby Fox, was prided for its emphasis on nonviolence and the ability to talk with the opponents without taking their lives. Mirror's edge, while still more or less AAA (even with less marketing), did not focus on violence, but on parkour and freerunningQuick Clarification:I do not mean that violence should be taken out, just taken down a bit. Violence should be used when it makes sense, but not as much as it is now. The horse is dead, you can put down your baseball bats.
there should be less violence in video games

Well, I have already debated on a similar topic with someone who shared similar views as i did. I couldn't find much in the area of debates in the challenge period, so i decided to make another one. First round is acceptance. Definitions:Video Game: an electronic work, specifically a virtual one ultimately comprised of data; this definition can be stretched, but shouldn't impact the debate on whole if it does.Violence: The portrayal of one body or force physically harming an animal, in most cases a human. ==>Things are "more" violent if they encourage violent behavior or portray them as normal, display gruesome content as it applies to violence, or otherwise can offend people by means of violence. Therefore, "less", in this argument, means it does not have or use as much or any of the above characteristics I have labelled as "more" violent.Specifications on "should be"; I will assert that it is beneficial for the majority of any parties involved with gaming and the effects thereof, directly or indirectly, for games to have less violence in them. ("beneficial" not meaning without consequence, but that the potential gain outweigh the losses.)Also, understand we are talking in hypotheticals; if violence were to drastically decrease, i am asserting that things would be "better" (see previous paragraph). Both sides must acknowledge that we cannot fully know what would happen under such circumstances; however, we can elaborate on what we do know, and hope that is enough.The TL;DNR version: pretty much exactly what you would expect. A few definitions and such to make the argument more rigid, which should be considered, but you don't have to memorize them or anything.
Zoos do more harm than good.

First, zoos were only a SMALL portion of why Bald Eagles were saved. Law enforcement on eagle hunting in their native regions was the main cause for their survival. Second, zoos worldwide say that more than 83% of people visiting zoos just glance at the signs to see the name of the animal on display. Being of a curious nature, I usually read the long, tiny print, but next time you go to the zoo, check if people stand there for very long. "More then half the world would not know about some animals currently housed in the zoo." Half the world has never been to a zoo, so they cannot learn about the animals, so when you say this, those people will never know about those animals. The reasons may be that they are too poor, they are uninterested, or they don't live close enough to one. Zoos are meant to attract visitors and get money, like most other establishments. Most don't care about whether animals survive or not, only how much profit they will make. Non-profit charities are another thing, but the debate is about zoos. Many animals kept in their small, restricting cages get a condition dubbed 'zoochosis'. Symptoms of this condition include bar-biting, endless pacing, and laying on the floor of their cage for days, even weeks at a time. Animals released into the wild, the few there have been, wait until 'meal-time' and they are not used to killing/finding their own food. These released species are not fit for wild life that has been so unkindly thrust upon them.
Zoos do more harm than good.

Zoos do much more good then harm for many reasons. My first point is that zoos do much more good because they educate many kids worldwide and even many adults. More then half the world would not know about some animals currently housed in the zoo. Each house for an animal contains a sign in front of it informing the reader about the animal and what species it is and other facts. My second point is that zoos also help the animals and save wildlife species. For example, if the zoos had not saved the bald eagle it would be extinct right now; by taking it in, caring for it, and then releasing it in the wild, it saved the species of birds all together. To rebutt my opponents points I have to say zoos are not big and therefore cannot save that many animals I agree but they still save the handful of animals they house.
Zoos do more harm than good.

Thank you crazypenguin, for your time and for the honor of having your first debate, judging by the fact you logged on for the first time right next to me. First off, many people think that zoos help endangered animals, and returned them to the wild. In reality, there are over 6,000 endangered animals and million upon millions of endangered plant species.On record, only 162 animal species are housed in zoos WORLDWIDE and of those few only 16 have ever been returned to the wild. These species might not have been documented to survive for more than a day though. For example, a species of baboon, 103 in total, were dropped off in a jungle where they came from more than 18 years before, and only 30 survived and were captured for further breeding. All the others were eaten. Many zoos were found to kill, or cull, animals that no longer attracted visitors. This inhumane reasoning could be easily solved by giving the animals to another zoo, or releasing them, or even giving them away, depending on their species. I would like to hear what you have to say, and I will refute your points and add some of my own. Thanks.
Zoos do more harm than good.

First I will refute your rebuttals Zoos have better intentions then gaining money and bringing visitors because if they wanted to do that there are plenty other ways such as shops, selling stuff, advertising and things along those lines. They actually will remember what the sign says. When you learn something in school do you forget it? If your mom tells you you have a flight the next week do you forget it? No that's why people don't either. AND I will tell you the point that is clearly stated at least 3 times in my previous arguments ZOOS DO CARE ABOUT ANIMALS OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE CALLED A ZOO!! You say "What other business can you name that is not interested in making money, will go out of the way the make less money, and is Not a non-profit organization " Yes I agree with you but think about it if it is a profit organization then if it's making less money then it's earning how will it stay in business? The only way that could happen if it was non-profit. So that doesn't make any sense. Have you ever gone on the tour ride around the zoo? If not the driver/announcer always tells facts about the animals, the people at the zoo are trying to inform you otherwise if they didn't care why would they try to tell you. You admitted that they do spend the money for better facilities and that the crowd is now attracted making even more money for even better facilities which makes it a cycle! I know because I have seen the animals been groomed and fed and cared for. Also giving drugs having nothing to do with this that is blowing the situation up. Animals are not being tortured like you said "drug that makes most of us die, but gives a small portion of us superpowers." And for the fifth time the ZOOS ARE NOT LETTING THOUSAND OF ANIMALS SUFFER JUST FOR MONEY they are keeping the animals safe while giving them a better life. I am sorry that I didn't address your point about "Last, you have not rebutted my point about zoos KILLING ANIMALS THAT NO LONGER ATTRACT VISITORS.(arg.1)" I will address it now: Zoo's that no longer attract visitor send the animals back to the wild or to other zoos as a fact. I do tell you that that is not true. Suppose there is a monster outside waiting to kill you now would you take the risk of going out and facing it with the resources you have or stay in a safe house...truthfully Thank you,
Zoos do more harm than good.

First I will rebutt your points... "To rebutt your points you admitted that zoos did help bald eagles even if it was a small portion it still helped the bald eagle meaning that it caused little but at least some effect so zoos help endangered species." << >> "Second what about the 17% of people you forgot who look at the signs and educate themselves and others which I will adress later on in my argument." << >> "Third, Yes half the world has not been in a zoo but what about the other half you are forgetting about them who do go to zoos and even if the poor or uninterested people didn't go enough people are learning about what is going on around the world and educate others." <<>> "Fourth, that is completly untrue, zoos make the money and where do they spend it? To make better facilities and better care for the animals. They do care whether the animals survive or not thats what a zoo is taking care of animals." << >> "Fifth, many animals do have that but it is all going to pay off, suppose yes you are stuck in a cage but how big would you make a facility. you can't make it miles long just for the animals where would all the other stuff in the world be? The zoos care for, feed and groom the animals." << >> Since when do kids learn about zoos in school? It is better to live free and on your own(as a human) where you can get hurt than to live locked up in jail where there is no threat posed upon you. Tell me that that is not true. I dare you. Last, you have not rebutted my point about zoos KILLING ANIMALS THAT NO LONGER ATTRACT VISITORS.(arg.1) Please think about it as long as 3 days will let you:)
Zoos do more harm than good.

To rebutt your points you admitted that zoos did help bald eagles even if it was a small portion it still helped the bald eagle meaning that it caused little but at least some effect so zoos help endangered species. Second what about the 17% of people you forgot who look at the signs and educate themselves and others which I will adress later on in my argument. Third Yes half the world has not been in a zoo but what about the other half you are forgetting about them who do go to zoos and even if the poor or uninterested people didn't go enough people are learning about what is going on around the world and educate others. Fourth that is completly untrue, zoos make the money and where do they spend it? To make better facilities and better care for the animals. They do care whether the animals survive or not thats what a zoo is taking care of animals. Fifth many animals do have that but it is all going to pay off, suppose yes you are stuck in a cage but how big would you make a facility. you can't make it miles long just for the animals where would all the other stuff in the world be? The zoos care for, feed and groom the animals. Now for some of my points, First there are approximetly 13014 school in CA, which means more then 20 times that amount in the world. In all those schools kids are learning about zoos and a handful of those schools have taken a field trip to one. Second Zoos help animals survive if they were out in the wild they wouldn't last half as long as if they were kept in a zoo, Zoos keep the animals safe, feed them, care for them and look after them, would you get that in the wildlife?
Baptism is essential for salvation

Baptism is essential for salvation. Let me illustarte. First, early in the Saviour's ministry, he sought out John the baptist in the river Jordan and was baptized himself. He set the example He wants us to follow. He was without sin yet he obeyed the law of heaven by being baptized. Then He said : "come follow me", meaning we do what He did. Second, He is the ultimate authority, He told Nicodemus that "except a man be born of the water and the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God". This is a clear reference to baptism by water and then receiving the Holy Ghost. Unless we are baptized, we cannot enter the kingdom of God. Third, He said "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved". He said we had to do both, not just believe alone but coupled with baptism. I turn the time over to my opponent. King James version of the bible John 3:5 Mark16:16
Baptism is essential for salvation

I would like to begin by addressing that my opponent basically dropped my entire offensive argument by not responding to Matthew 10:9 where it clearly states that you can be saved without being baptized. Seeing that he didnt attack it, this point still stands and should be weighed heavily in the judgment of this debate. "If you declare with your mouth "Jesus is Lord", and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead then you will be saved(NIV)." My opponent brings up John 3:5 again in his conclusion but he did not address my evidence saying that "water" could mean anything. For example, from the source that I posted, being born of water probably means being born of a woman's womb. As for Acts 22:16, I will bring up three Bible verses that state that our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ not baptism: Hebrews 9:14, Romans 5:9, Ephesians 1:7. It is possible that in Acts 22:16 being baptized and washing away one's sins could be two separate events. According to the same source that I posted previously [1], Romans 6:3-6 is figurative since it references our deaths, and of course we are not dead yet. And finally, in regard to Acts 2:38, repentance and baptism are often identified as going hand in hand but repentance is the one that actually washes away your sin, not baptism. Seeing that I have proven that baptism is not required to be saved through my reference of Matthew 10:9, and that I have successfully countered all the verses he referenced, Vote Con. [1] http://carm.org...