BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Hunting as a sport is good for the sustainability of wildlife populations.

Though you say hunting game for resale is illegal, laws only stop the honest people. There are some who will hunt and sell what they kill for profit. Even if it is only a handful, they still exist. Also, people are watching and monitoring to make sure the balance stays, well, balanced, but there are always unexpected events. A hunter could kill a few too many, and another hunter could as well. Then, it is all off balance again, because it only takes a little bit. Again, for the laws about certain game that can be hunted and other hunting laws, they only stop the honest people. Others will hunt illegally, sell illegally, and some will get away with it, throwing the ecosystem even more off balance.
Hunting as a sport is good for the sustainability of wildlife populations.

Over hunting has caused a few species to go extinct, this is true. However, habitat loss is the number one cause of extinction. Humans ARE the top predator in the food chain, and the only predators who are capable of studying and understanding their impact on game populations. Over hunting in the past, and human realizations of over hunting's impact is exactly why hunters were the first people to lobby for wildlife conservation and habitat reserves. Licensed hunting seasons are designed specifically to balance the population of the game. Other wildlife such as predators are accounted for as well as estimated levels of illegal hunting. We had professionals working hard every day tracking herd sizes and movements. Never before in history have humans paid as close of attention as we currently do to our impact on the balance of ecosystems. It is actually illegal to hunt wild game for resale. We have laws in place to make it illegal specifically to avoid situations like the great Buffalo kills of the western expansion period. The jobs I was referring to when talking about the economy were game wardens, equipment sales & manufacturing, land leasing, travel, tourism and education. Hunting has evolved along side humans to become a long standing tradition and part of the human experience. The economic side of hunting has evolved like every interest specific economy. We even have American hunters pumping money into saving the wildlife of Africa, in countries that wouldn't be able to afford to manage their wildlife without our money. After all, hunters have the most to lose if we don't practice wildlife conservation properly!
Hunting as a sport is good for the sustainability of wildlife populations.

Though hunting is regulated, it has still led to the extinction of many types of animals. Also, the top predators, in the food chain, need to eat more food to survive. So, without hunting, some will die from lack of food, keeping it in balance. Also, hunting may help feed us, but it doesn't help feed other animals who need to eat. In fact, if one species gets extinct, the top predators will die off, and another species will rule. So, hunting can cause the biggest unbalance in the ecosystem. With money, hunting does help some families pay bills, but hunting doesn't pay as much as another job might. Also, most hunters don't stay within the limits, or hunt illegally, making the ecosystem more off balance.
Hunting as a sport is good for the sustainability of wildlife populations.

Point 1 Hunting for sport is regulated on the state and federal level to ensure the survival of game species and their habitat. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... . http://www.reserveamerica.com... The money generated by the states from these licenses is matched by federal funds (so long as the state uses its licensing funds 100% for conservation) to pay for habitat conservation, scientific studies to help better understand conservation techniques and fisheries. . http://www.rmef.org... Much like how a toll road helps pay for the continuation of the congestion free roadway. Point 2 Humans are responsible for the extinction or near extinction of most natural predators. Without those predators or human hunters reducing the populations of many game species, their populations would exceed the ability of their habitat to support them. This can lead to many problems for humans and game alike. Starvation - if there isn't enough food for the herd the whole herd will begin to starve. Undernourished game are more susceptible to disease and more likely to venture into areas densely populated by humans where they can be struck by cars or poisoned by pollution. . http://www.dnr.state.il.us... Point 3 There is a huge economy surrounding hunting and trapping that pumps money into wild life reserves, awareness and provides jobs. . http://www.chattanoogan.com...
Hunting as a sport is good for the sustainability of wildlife populations.

Though there are conservation efforts being made, who's to say they'll keep up in the same pattern? If you look at different parts of history, humans have made bigger changes than they thought they would, because of how things had been going before. Hunting as a sport, could make some people go overboard and change the patterns of these, taking us right back to square one. Also, raising money for legal hunts, will only make people want to hunt illegally more. Since they will get lots of money for their legal hunts, they can illegally sell their game for double that money to someone who isn't justified under the law. Then other species and plants will be effected and our ecosystem will go off balance. Though in years to come, it may balance back out, anything could happen between those years to eliminate more of these species. It has been a pleasure debating with you. I will admit, this was a bit of a tough subject, and you gave me a hard challenge, but I used the best arguments I could find. Thank you.
Morality is not relative

who would take there time of day to spread a message like this across? One cannot condemn the different view points, the cultures, and societies, we have to deal with it. Being morally relative is a choice like you said Lincoln fought for freedom, it is within our "freedom" to do what we want in our lifes'. Now come to America and murder some one, that's a different story you are in American grounds, go to another land where its allowed, by all means to what you have to do. It is within your perception what you believe is morally right or wrong, how you where brought up how you where raised, taught, etc.. We have a choice, so choose, it's America.
Morality is not relative

You do not think we can trust anyone? Not even our parents, siblings or significant others? I do not lock the door to my house or room, in fact the people I live with all leave their information out. We have pins and passwords because we enjoy our privacy, and yes unfortunately that privacy may be nonexistent. Of course it can be easily said that we must not trust anyone, but in actuality, we HAVE to. In order for society to progress, there has to be some trust. I am not saying America is completely innocent and that our country is one hundred percent morally right in everything we do. Sociopaths may be the way they are for a certain reason, but what if they love killing, even though it is wrong and were taught it was wrong. If you don't know any better, then there must be some way to teach them the right way. Just because something is right in one culture does no deem it right throughout the world. The United States is not the only country that dictates certain things right or wrong, there are many countries throughout the world that believe the same things. This leads me into speaking about morals that are universal. We cannot solely accept one societies views on a morally wrong act because that is the way they were raised of because they do not know any better, that would be ignorant of us to do that. If we are capable of showing them a better way of living, why would we hold ourselves back from teaching them that. Sure, why can't there be a group of individuals who spread a message and change the world? It has been attempted in the past. MLK fought for civil rights, Abe Lincoln fought for the freedom of slaves. If those things would not have happened, we would be living in a society where progression is impossible. If there is progression in societies, that means that morality is not relative.
Morality is not relative

We live in a world where we can't trust no one. Why are all our doors locked? why do we have pins, and passwords? We can't trust no one, that's just reality. it is taught within in certain age to know right from wrong, how ever what if one is raised in an evil society where one does not know right from wrong. For example, all those socio paths are the way they are for a reason, if you dig deep enough you will find all the answers. Obviously it is wrong to harm, to murder, what if you don't know any better? is it really your fault? there are many cultures out there and they are not all like AMERICA. we must accept all these cultures, show one another right from wrong. I'm sure if given ultimatums everyone would listen, is there really going to be that person who grabs every single society to do what asked or be apart of there culture? i think not! no given time! i think not! Morality is relative, and will remain that way.
Morality is not relative

Everyone has the capability of thinking for themselves. To say that someone doesn't have the fault on not being able to think that something is wrong or right is in itself wrong. If we are taught from a certain age that something is right, and grow to learn that it indeed is not right, we can change our ways. You're right, children may not know right from wrong in the beginning, but as they grow older, they can determine what is right or wrong. For example, a child that is raised in a Pacific Island and was taught cannibalism, then moves to the United States where it is morally wrong, does not mean that the child will continue to be a cannibal. That child is being introduced as to why exactly it is wrong to eat human flesh. Another point that you made that is correct is about personal preference. Absolutely, I should be able to determine whether or not I want to eat fish or steak for dinner, or the fact that I like the color blue over red. Just because I have a personal preference does not mean that I have to conduct a morally wrong act. These cultures may not think they are wrong, but they are indeed wrong in making these conclusions and accepting it because it is a tradition. We all have free will and can think for ourselves, we should not let what someone of a higher position in society dictate that. Being a sociopath does not mean that the person does not know what is morally right or wrong. Murder is a universally moral wrong answer, which is why there are laws against it. Just as we all appreciate honesty, trust is necessary in all parts of our lives. Imagine living in a world where you could not completely trust anyone?
Morality is not relative

Morality is not relative. There is only one morally right or wrong answer. For example, murder is morally wrong, just because a society were to believe that a festival, where murdering people is ok once a year, does not make it right. Morality should not change from place to place, or culture to culture. If morality were different throughout the world, the human race as a whole would not progress. Since we have progressed from our past, we have learned that some things may have been morally wrong, and made a change to make it right. If we were to solely accept other societies or cultures on their moral right or wrong, then slavery would still be intact. Since there are morals that are universal and that societies share as a whole, this means that some morals are necessary for society to function. Due to the fact that there are universally right morals, that leads to show that there are some that are universally wrong. Therefore, if morality is relative there would be no change and every other opinion would not matter in a society. (1.) There are not multiple moral rights and wrongs to murder. (2.) A moral code should not change from culture to culture. (3.) Progression is a sign of change from a past culture. (4.) Hence, morality cannot be relative if judgment is passed and there is progression.
Morality is not relative

So you are saying that slavery in another land is o.k.? In today's age, sex slaves are the slaves of our era. Is it alright for me to have a woman please me to my every desire without her having a say so? I think no. Many people have taken the time of day to make such acts a reality. Why wouldn't anyone want to make a difference in someone else's life? In order to make changes we have to start individually, and spread the message. We have passed judgment on our past society, is that wrong? It is a sign of progression, and if we can progress from what was morally wrong back then, that means we can progress from things taht are morally wrong at this moment. People all over the world have this choice, we are born with free will. Americans are not the only ones with freedom. If we pass judgment on other societies, on our own past society and have deemed it wrong then that means we can move on from something morally wrong to something that is morally right. There are morals that are universally right and ones that are universally wrong. Morality cannot be relative if we pass judgment on any society, including our own past society.
Physical exercise against knowledge in school to prevent diseases and money loss

Knowing how the body works is already included in your core science/ health class offered in school, so saying that your extra exercise class is integral to learning how the body works in school is false. You"re assuming that: The root of depression in adults and stress in children is too much thinking in their adolescence. Exercise is the best way to tackle these problems because of its physiological benefits. It's harder for children to take up extracurriculars in comparison to random exercise replacing of their core classes. This judgement is SOLELY up to the student and his or her family. You"re neglecting freedom of choice by forcing them in a class that they might want to be in because you think it would be better for them. It would be wrong for a student to exercise because you feel it"s beneficial if they do not want to exercise. If we use your logic you may as well force sex on people because of its physiological benefits. Insuring prosperity in students by adding an extra gym class & replacing core classes is highly illogical. We live in a society where you need to balance check books, read contracts, file taxes,pursue a career, etc. If you want children to live a richer & healthier life you should want them to become well versed in their core classes in school so that they can have the knowledge to function properly in this society . "sacrificing a bit of head-knowledge in order to restore the well-being of our lives" & "replacing MANY subjects in school with physical exercise". If any one is devaluing education, it is you since you want replace the building blocks of ones knowledge in their academic career for a supplemental exercise class Core classes will positively effect test scores, because they are learning the core subjects that are on these tests. Why sacrifice this? You"re inconsistent & introducing a new topic: a health and wellness class, not a phys. ed exercise class. You cannot conflate the two because you never introduced that in the beginning I would also like to point out that pro never refuted the the negative effects I presented in round 2. Schools should focus their energies on encouraging extracurriculars, so that students have the option to relieve stress in their own way. Since Pro never refuted my effects in round 1, one can reasonably conclude that adding a supplementary gym class will do more harm than good because the only benefit she stated was the chance that they will have a "healthier and prosperous life" because they exercise more. There are activities that give the same effect. It should be left up to the students and their respective families, friends, mentors etc. to cultivate them. You"re taking away from students who value their class time and forcing the majority conform to minority interests. Pro never addressed my appeal to how low the percentages are in round 2. School is here to help students cultivate the knowledge that will help them function properly in this society.
Physical exercise against knowledge in school to prevent diseases and money loss

I agree very much that the schools should put more emphasis on physical activity, also outside of school, sadly this almost never happens. It's not as if history teachers stops teaching history for 10 minutes to inform the children about exercise. And even if the teachers were to do so, the students who are not athletically conditioned would have a hard time finding a sport to attend, surely this would cause despair in many teens as they will have very little guidance. I really think it's unsympathetic to say that teens should simply just attend sports in their free time, it's not that easy for many many children, unsurprisingly as they are conditioned to sit and listen for multiple hours a day. And to your argument that physical exercise is not suited for all is absolutely unheard of. The only reason it could be wrong for someone to exercise would be if the person did it the wrong way. Now this adds to the argument that physical exercise should be taught more in school, so that the students learn about exercise from an experienced person and in that way understands which exercises he/she should do to claim the essential benefits, that we just established physical exercise provides, so that the student can prosper with a fuller richer and healthier life. To believe that children won't have the same physiological response to excessive stress as adults is absurd. I also fail to comprehend why you would devalue physical education, even when it seems like you understand the remarkable effects physical activity can have. So knowing how the body works will give the students great tools to approach life with, especially compared with the knowledge you gain from let's say math class. To me it's no wonder that 121 million people in the world suffer from depression, knowing that we are neglecting the importance of knowing how the body works. 30% of the US population suffers from depression making the country one of the most depressed in the world. This leads me back to my first round where I suggest making changes to the children's schooling/conditioning in terms of informing the children about how their body works and how to develop themselves in a healthier manner. http://www.healthline.com...
Physical exercise against knowledge in school to prevent diseases and money loss

Granting that physical exercise relieves stress in general I will continue to restate the fact that exercise is not the solution for all. Again if I'm understanding correctly, your arguement it Replacing brain time with physical exercise. Now I do agree that exercise can relieve stress for some which is why schools have clubs, sports teams, intermurals and of course the allotted gym time. Since we aren't specifically debating about the schools that have reduced exercise time and more knowledge time I will only acknowledge your statement on that purely for the sake of example. Since we are debating implementing more exercise in a broader sense we cannot assume the extreme (a school that has a lot of exercise time and vice versa) when debating. So, I absolutely agree with the affects of exercise on students and school behavior because for SOME, exercise is the answer. For this select group of children though, the school may have clubs, sports and intermurals that they can relieve their stress in after school. So instead on "replacing" hours learning,, the students that feel it is imperative to exercise have the option to join clubs, sports etc. In doing so, this child would have even more exercise time everyweek. Including sports practice, that on average practices two days a week for two hours will get a guaranteed four hours of exercise time. Add these hours to the one hour gym period that is maybe three times a week will put exercise time up to 4-7 hours a week. Now lets include any games that the child as to perform in etc. To make a sweeping statement saying that all children will benefit from extra exercise time that may or may not help the majority of the class and is quite frankly absurd. You should leave the option for extra exercise time up to the student, there are other possible factors of stress and different stress relievers in children. Which brings me to a realization: You're excluding children that relieve stress in a different way. Although exercise physiologically releases endorphins that combat stress, there are many other activities that have the same effect. It is up to the student and his or her family to decide what that is and facilitate that. The schools only provide resources to do so, not force you to use them. You also keep giving me statistics for the adults in america and not children when talking about mental health. To use such a statistic and then say this is this can happen with children is also a stretch. The percentages that you are giving are far to low to be implementing such a great change across the board. Should those children in those respective schools want to exercise, I am sure that they can join a sport or club to make up for their deficit. Instead of increasing physical education that replaces classroom time and takes the focus off of learning I suggest we encourage sports and clubs for children who want to exercise more and relieve stress. Not introduce another variable in these students lives.