BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pro (Universal Salvation) vs Con (Eternal Torment)

This debate will be arguing about which one has more accuracy of what the bible teaches. Universal Salvation or Eternal Torment for those who are considered sinners. Round 1 will be to accept the debate. Round 2 starts debate itself. This debate will not only involve biblical teachings, but will involve about rather the first and early church fathers were practicing and believing the two doctrines. Whoever takes the challenge, I thank you in advance.
there should be zoos

website used- http://wiki.answers.com... They are the safest way to see animals. If it wasn't for zoos then some people would no see amazing creatures. Now there are a lot of animals in the zoo that are extinct in the wild. To protect the animals. website used- http://www.debate.org... In the forest it is really hard for animals to find food but in the zoo we feed them. We can learn stuff about animals like stuff to help the or create a new invention. It brings joy to kids eyes. Treated better than the wild. No other animals or human to hunt and kill them. Help endangered species by breeding them. Don't die form dieses in the zoos but in the wild there is more of chance that will happen. website used- http://www.forandagainst.com... Zoos have proven to be very beneficial in the area of animal rights. Zoos are required to provide a safe and fun environment. If someone hunts for them or hurts them and there are no zoos who will save them,
The US, and honestly the whole world, should implement a cap on births per person/couple to 5.

The way the world population is expanding is incredible (http://www.census.gov... for reference).The amount of free space will only continue to sink, meanwhile the worlds' soil nutrients are, contrary to what we want to believe, quite limited in the long run. Fresh water will become less and less available without the use of desalination plants. Confined and closed spaces would birth inter-human frustration and potentially violence. One could speculate you might even see a tighter governmental grip on the populace, and as resources deplete the "top" would be protected while the mass incur increased suffering. 5 is a reasonable and agreeable number, and I think that in the future it will be easier to move down to 4, then 3, then 2, and on. We would be able to keep up an affordable amount of food so none of the population would have to starve. As modern medicine continues the huge scientific gains it has had, civilization may see an end to death as we know it, making the number of new births equal to the population the humans of the future so desire and can afford. Baby steps.
The US, and honestly the whole world, should implement a cap on births per person/couple to 5.

Does your statistic on two births per woman include women who do not have children their entire lives? Where does this statistic come from? I would like to see sources.Meanwhile I would like to present a statistic by the PEW research center; yes, 22 percent of mothers ages 40-44 have only one child, however 24 percent have three children and 14 percent have four or more children. (2014) (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) The trend is located downward, yes, but it is incorrect to say that it will definitely continue to shrink. Think of it this way, fourteen percent of the population are at least doubling the population size. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org... It is also shown that as education decreases, family size increases. That is not exactly the trend we would want to see if we are wishing to create a more intellegent society. I do not think that those who have more than the limit of births should be considered criminals. It is quite obvious when looking at China's old one-child policy that wealthier families had the advantage, as they could afford to pay the fine for multiple children, and it is good to mention that it was destructive to their economy as well for less children had to take care of more aged parents/grandparents. However, some policy restricting the number of births to at least stop an outrageous number would be good at "trimming the fat" and it will make a statistical difference. I do not put forth any cement policy of incentive or punishment for this, thought I do have some ideas, but rather make the point that something should be worked out that would encourage this policy. Whether it be increased access to (or possibly mandated) birth control, abortion if the fetus is within the acceptable time in its development, placing a child for adoption or in some national academy, offering an incentive for families to have the ideal number of children in that time, or some combination of the like, in the future a policy of some sort is needed.Life expectancies are on the rise and bellies will need to be filled, heads will need beds, and for some stupid reason everyone feels they are entitled to at least one vehicle.
The US, and honestly the whole world, should implement a cap on births per person/couple to 5.

First of all, in The US the current rate of births per women is at less than 2. This means that for america at least, the population is unlikely to change significantly over the next couple of centuries and the rest of the world is expected to cap at 10 billion. Although 10 billion is a fair size larger than at current, th really isn't much a birth rate cap can do about it. This is due to how in almost all 1st world countries the birth rate per women is at less than 2 or will be there in the next decade or so, meaning it is only the 3rd world counties that seem to be causing the global population to rise. The reason a birth rate cap won't solve this is because the large amounts of births in 3rd world countries is due to the lack of birth control. This means that in most cases, the women giving birth don't intend to have children but have no way of stoping it from happening. This means that no matter what kind of laws are enforced, all you will get is a lot of people braking laws and an under-staffed, under paid and under-funded police force chasing after 'criminals' who's only crime was not being able to afford birth control and not being able to chose wether or not to have children (women have very little rights in most 3rd world countries).
Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality.

Yes the U.S. government does hold more power than the state, but that's not the argument here. The current power over the regulation of water belongs to the state, and to change that would be catastrophic. The system already works, even though there are some struggles, but the gov. can't use one full regulation for all states even though the states are all different in environment. The resolution of the debate states that the government would implement a stricter policy, not just push one, which if it's so important than that's what they should do.
Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality.

NO. The word implement is a no. Therefore, this entire questions structure is a no. Implementation seems to portray aggression, and without consideration of states powers. States do have powers within certain limits and those powers must be recognized and respected by the "overall" government of U.S. To implement anything without consulting with-your fellow statesmen, may result in an uneasy power tension struggle. Therefore its not what you say, but how one says it. The U.S Government may push for more effective regulations for greater water quality. This sentence would suffice for attracting positiveness in regulation negotiations.
Resolution: The U.S. Government should implement stricter regulation on water quality.

The fact that anybody would want the gov. to regulate the quality of water is insanity. The U.S. gov. has made enough mistakes already and this doesn't need to add to the list. All they would do is screw it up, currently water quality is decided by the state, but if the gov. would take over full control they would first off be overwhelmed. Also every state is different, you cant have the same regulations in CA as you do in PA, but the gov. would most likely just blanket all regulations under one. Also everyone has a different idea of water quality. There is an 8$ bottle of water that is black with dirt but its considered "healthy". Listen everyone is different so if the people are ok with drinking sh** then I have no problem with it. (If you have any other aruements in the con of this topic please let me know!)
Science definitively proves Creationism to be factual

Science clearly proves that Creationism is, in fact, very real. To prove my argument, I will make four points (out of many possibilities, for the sake of expidency): 1. The argument that "nature" has the power to create life is ludicrous. My evidence for this argument is derived from logic (the science of reason): If pure chance can create life, than why can't humans? We are an intelligent race which can synthesise chemicals and clone animals, so why can't we produce the protiens necessary to create life? 2. Hypothetically, if point 1 was somehow invalid, and if life WAS created by pure chance, than why do we have such a diversity of life on Earth? Furthermore, why do symbiotes exist? Why do we just happen to consume oxygen to remain alive, and why do plants just happen to consume carbon dioxide, and in turn produce oxygen? How can two mutually dependant species "evolve" at the same time, just in time to save one another from extinction? 3. How can Evolutionists explain the presence of such irreducibly complex organs as the eye? How can a light-sensitive organ so astronomically complex organ "evolve" out of single-cell life forms? 4. Why do humans have emotions such as anger and compassion? Anger blinds us to reason, and this is counter to survival. Compassion (true compassion, by the way) is utterly selfless, thus also counter to survival. By the same note, why do we feel better when we donate resources to charity? It can't bring us any survival benefit (in fact, we're losing resources, so it actively harms our survival), so why does it exist?Note: If you want to argue with me, I'd rather you provide good, logical responses instead of slinging mud (an Issue I often deal with).
DOTA 2 is better than League of Legends

I totally agree with you, that LOL was based on the first DOTA like all of the other MOBA games. It also has a few different games styles, like minigames in DOTA 2. The last thing I would like to say about LOL is that the game is very popular in USA makes it better for other players. What I'm saying is that the the contingent is way better. There is a major problem that DOTA 2 has that is called Verbal Abuse. The problem exists because the game is popular in Russia, where kids nowadays are not "sweet". Most of the abusers are children below 16. Some might consider this problem a minor one, but for me it is a serious one. By doing a single mistake you can get tons of swearing words falling on you, this causes lots of disruption. Overall, I agree that both Games are good, but for me LOL is way better than DOTA 2.
DOTA 2 is better than League of Legends

First of all I want to mention that LoL was based on Dota All Stars gameplay by Blizzard. The main idea was taken from the Dota too. Secondly, I agree that LoL has done some Championships too, but there is only one reason why? We can explain it that LoL as i said is older, and it has more time to deal with it. However I don't want to highlight this arguments, there is one that is more interesting. As you said LoL is more friendly for newbies. Let's speak about pluses that newbies can achieve in Dota 2. At first if you have played Dota 2 recently there was new update: special mini-game that can teach you basics (how to play and control). Secondly there is special system of searching games (I mean battles). According to this system in the battle it is impossible to see 1st level players(newbies) and experienced players from 10lvl and higher. In other words newbies play with newbies and experinced players play with similar gamers. Lastly about nonessential things like items that fall from you after death, denying creeps and ect. To my mind these "nonessential things" make game more interesting. In conclusion I want to say that LoL is a good game. It is popular in some countries (especially USA). But this game is for fans, like Dota 1. In some period of time it has achieved the highest marks, but that time has gone. Progress does not stand still. And it concerns cybersport. To my mind Dota 2 is the best game in multiplayer online battle arena genre. Thank You for debating.
DOTA 2 is better than League of Legends

I would like to react to your statement about all those championships around DOTA 2. It is true that there some of these happening at the moment but I think you know the reason for it. DOTA 2 Gained all of it's popularity because of the first DOTA, the game that invented the genre. However, LOL earned people by itself, it is a first game of it's series and it proved that the game was approved by the community. LOL was played on over 80 major tournaments, such as Dreamhack, ESL, MLG, IEM and others. The second reason that I would like to state is that LOL is more user friendly and is easier to play for the beginners. In DOTA 2 it is very difficult to learn all of the basics, what makes you practice with the AI for hours straight. Also, there are more nonessential thing like Items that fall from you after death, denying creeps, and etc. If a newbie tries to play with people right away he/she usually gets beaten in minutes, what results in a defeat, a thing that nobody likes.
DOTA 2 is better than League of Legends

In my mind, it is necessary to mention that now Dota 2 is absolutely free, if you want, you can check it on the STEAM (Steam is a digital distribution, digital rights management, multiplayer and communications platform developed by Valve Corporation). Next, as you said in LoL you are able to spend your money as you want and actually you can spend nothing. But the similar situation we can see in the Dota 2. If you don't want you aren't forced to buy some upgrades, staff or bonuses. Also i want to mention that Dota 2 is more modern game. It was created in 2012, and LoL was made in 2008. Furthermore I want to say that Dota 2 has held many International Championships and Competitions( The International 1,2,3 GamesCom, Atod 2 and more). There is a very little amount of games throughout the world that can present such index of competitions per year. And LoL isn't in this quantity.
DOTA 2 is better than League of Legends

There are certainly many reasons why League of Legends is better than DOTA 2. The first one is that the game is absolutely free and is more accessible by the public. The game is enjoyed by more than 4 million people daily. But even though the game is free, it does not make you spend a single penny for additional stuff if you don't want to. So this makes LOL better than DOTA 2.
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

Disraeli, Oakeshott and Burke:I thought that Disraeli was making a comment on what you would call modern conservatism. I still think that what he said applies to modern conservatism. It is cowardly to keep to the known because of a fear of the unkown when the unknown would serve better. Conservatism nowadays is to ignore a theory without testing it. I use the God Complex to explain how one would assume that they are right before observing other possibilities. I disagree with Oakeshott's idea of society. I believe that there is an aim: social justice; political system that is for the benefit of everyone. This is the general view of liberals. We believe that things should change so we can at least pursue this utopia (as some may call it). The definition of (modern) conservatism is continuety and not change which is what I'm arguing about.Modern Conservatism in the United Kingdom:Conservatism in the UK means many things will happen and the only change will be backwards. Conservatism means the domination of society by an aristocracy, the poor are treated worse, elites are created, social issues stay the same, rights are restricted etc. Liberalism is much about the people's rights which are restricted by conservatives. For example, The current Conservative government wants to make an already hard life harder for the poorest people in the country by increasing the costs of living. Labour, a left-wing party, are standing up for the poor and asking for a fairer and more righteous treatment of them. Modern UK conservatism is about keeping their values and not mixing with others. Most members of the upper class are Tories. Why? Because Conservatism is continuety and they don't want change where fair treatment of the lower class would mean that they may become slightly less rich.
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

DisraeliIs Disraeli a Conservative? The solution to this question is most easily answered by the fact that there is no political philosopher who truly counts him as anything else.For the example, the quotation by Benjamin Disraeli on Conservatism is interesting, but not relevant. It is from his book Coningsby, book 2 Chapter 5, in which he criticises the other wings of the Conservative Party: the Peelites and the Conservationists. The specific quote criticises the Peelites. The Peelites are either liberal conservatives or liberals, depending on how one views the isue, specifically arguing for conservation of traditional authoritarian government coupled with a free market. Almost all Peelites were previously Whigs, and eventually joined with the Whigs to form the Liberal Party. Finally, Conservatism meaning what it does today only came about gone 1840, many years after Coningsby, and the quote, originated[1]. Previously, it meant people who held to an ideology. So in short, the quotation is not about Conesrvatives as we know them, but Peelites, but also the term 'Conservative' meant different to what it did when the book was wrote.OakeshottIs it cowardly to believe in testing something before applying it? Conservatism is at its core empirical: test a theory before applying it, as speculation alone doesn't mean it works in all circumstances. It is an opposition to ideology: Conservatism is a state of mind, not a completely rational theory. Progress should be made hesitantly and warily, looking for signs of wear and tear and fixing it up as time goes by. Furthermore, my opponent's suggestion taht he has a 'God Complex' because of his opposition to change is comical. Instead of doing precisely what Conservatism fears, that is conjecturing, making up, and then following through full steam ahead, why not test the hypothesis against the thoughts of Oakeshott? Because clearly, the evidence shows that his justification is the ship analogy. There is no forward and backwards to society: there is no goal or aim, and my opponent needs to prove one for his idea to be correct. It is about changing with one's situation, and making the lives of the seamen better by adjusting to the new circumstances. This clearly addresses my opponent's comical idea that his view is based on a God Complex: the justification is rationally founded.Burke, or ChangeAgain, my opponent posits this view that Conservatives are against change. However, this clearly is false: the quotations by the founder of Conservatism, Burke, addresses this. A nation that does not change is not truly Conservative. A nation needs to evolve. But evolution is a slow process. And we need evolution that works, for one mistake destroys a society. Rushing change simply fails.1 - http://www.etymonline.com...
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

Benjamin Disraeli:I am actually a great admire of Benjamin Disraeli and I know that he said "Conservatism discards Prescription, shrinks from Principle, disavows Progress; having rejected all respect for antiquity, it offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future." Disraeli created the One Nation philosophy which wants to unite a nation split between the rich and the poor. Conservatism at it's very core would want to widen or keep the social gap the same rather than narrow it. Disraeli may have been a member of the Conservative party but I don't believe that he was a Tory at heart.On what Oakeshott said:Oakeshott's unwillingness to accept change because he perfers the familiar to the unknown is, to be quite blunt, cowardly. It is based on the fear of what might come and how it might affect him. If he is not saying this because of cowardise that it is because of an irrational God complex. I'm using this definition of God complex to describe how he is unwilling to try other alternatives because he perceives his way of doing things as right. To quote George Bernard Shaw “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." What I'm saying is that an approach to politics with a policy of not changing anything (whether because of fear, egotism or subborness) will not lead to progress. Conservatism is fundamentally against change.The unkown can be better than the known. Yes, changing for the worse should be avoided but changing for the better shouldn't. That is what's wrong with a status quo. Too many times have governments not changed to what would be better because of their untouchable conservative mind that things are better to be left the way that they are. The doctrine of conservatism is simply incoherent. Conservatism is a bundle of beliefs, prejudices and vague sentimental attachments rather than an organised, unified philosophy. Of course change should be analysed before being accepted but most conservatives won't analyse change simply because they want to stick to their conservative beliefs.
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

I accept. I will defend the well-known Conservative view of Benjamin Disreali, but also some of Oakeshott. A couple quotes by Oakeshott will summarize my case: "To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss." -- Oakeshott Conservatism is a view of political activity. "In political activity, then, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy; and the seamanship consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of behaviour in order to make a friend of every hostile occasion." -- Oakeshott Conservatism is not Conservativism. That is, Conservatism is not about keeping all things the same. In the words of Burke, "We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature, and the means perhaps of its conservation." Change is necessary. Indeed, "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation". However, "It cannot at this time be too often repeated; line upon line; precept upon precept; until it comes into the currency of a proverb, To innovate is not to reform." Change is not necessarily good. Changing for the worse should be avoided. However, we are inclined to rapid random change at the slightest agitation. Thus, change is something to be wary of, and analysed, before accepting.
Conservatism is against progress and moving forward

I believe that right-wing politics is based around the refusal to move forward when others would prosper from the move and the denial of objective facts which support liberal viewpoints.Definitions:Conservitism: the disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and limit changeLiberalism: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairsProgress: a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stageThe first round doesn't have to be for acceptance. I don't mind if Con explains their view in Round One so the debate starts quicker.