BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Justice requires the recognition of animal rights

Rebuttal point 3 Sources- Global Warming isn't real, so ecosystem collapse doesn't count- http://www.friendsofscience.org... http://www.conserve-energy-future.com... Global Warming may not be real, therefore that benefit is not counted. And Pro must explain the economic benefits of the Endangered species act. 1b rebuttal Needless abuse is not unjust against animals as animals are a threat to the human species. Carnivores such as lions, tigers etc. stop us from exploring jungles. Herbivores eat up lot of plants and reduce greenery and crop production, which justifies beating them up. Omnivores have the same reason. Parasites drink our blood. Poisonous snakes and rats kill us. Animals also can transfer infectious diseases to us, decrease cleanliness of any area and make unwanted noises to distract us. Nuisance such as monkeys have often stolen food and destroyed delicate articles. Once they changed the location of my satellite dish and I couldn't watch TV. If any animal doesn't come in this list, then that animal will be beaten for appearing as a threat to us. If it doesn't appear as a threat, it is luring us into a trap and must be beaten. Or it came in our path and ruined our view, and justice ought to be done. Animals shouldn't be found in the urban environment, and I don't think anyone is mad enough to go into the forest just to beat them. 2 rebuttal I think intelligence is a morally relevant difference. If not, how about the facts that they are unable to communicate, do not follow any religion, and are a pest that has no regard for trespassing or for any human laws? If you believe justice should be applied to animals, then human laws should be applied to animals, otherwise it will be species' discrimination. Pretty much every animal has broken the rule of trespassing boundaries, and some have even stolen. Others have broken curfew in their countries. If anything, they should be tried for attempting to suicide due to passing on roads. If environmentalists had their way, soon there will be plant rights and we would be dying due to lack of food source. Please don't post my article anywhere, it is not at all good.
God, as defined by the (Christian) Bible, is not real.

I am taking the role of Con, arguing against God not existing. This means that I believe God exists. Moving on to the body of me 'case'. *Burden of Proof, for Dummies* I realize that anyone who uses this site on a regular basis is not a dummy, but the subject of "Burden of Proof" is pivotal to the formation of my arguments. It is 100% necessary that it is understood, which is why I am so lovingly giving a nice, clear description of it. First of all, burden of proof in a nutshell means this: "When attempting to argue something, it is necessary that the Affirmative side has adequate proof of such thing. Otherwise the Negative side would be stuck attempting to prove a negative. " This is one of the most common rules of any debate, and it is a necessary component to create a successful debate. For example, imagine a box. Now Pro affirms that there is an orange in the box. Con denies that there is an orange in that box. The burden of proof necessitates that Pro prove that the orange is in there, as opposed to Con proving there isn't. The Con's job then, would be to show why the Pro's proof is inadequate in showing that an orange is in that box. *On to the argument* Now here is a rather tricky situation we are in. It may seem that the Con is taking a Pro side, but this is simply because of preconceptions we have about the default setting of the statements like, "God exists. " Obviously this can be a Pro statement. Also, someone could say that, "God does not exist. " This is still a statement, and an obvious challenge, and is still considered to be a Pro statement. The Pro is AFFIRMING that no such entity of said 'God' exists. So when instigating such a challenge, it is still necessary that the Pro have proof of his claims. Therefore, Pro must absolutely prove that there can in NO WAY be a God that is described in the Christian Bible. Even if there is an extremely minute chance, this leaves the possibility, and Aff does not meet the burden of proof, and loses the debate. *So what did the opponent SAY? ?? ? * Well let's take a look at my opponent arguments affirming the non-existence of God. 1. The Bible might not be real, because multiple translations and such may make it fallible. This is the ONLY argument made. He said the Bible *might* not be real. But this does leave the *possibility* of it being true, doesn't it? Pro, as according to his burden of proof, had to PROVE, 100% PROVE that God was not real. He has not PROVEN the non-existence of God in ANY WAY, and has not PROVED the Bible to be false, merely saying that it COULD be false. Until my opponent does prove what he is holding to be true, it is necessary that the round go to the Con. How is it that the Con should clash with nothing? Just as a note, my opponent may state that the position he is in is 'unfair', but he and the voter must remember that it is HE who decided to accept this debate, not I. So when he plays the 'abuse' card, he should know that he only has himself to blame. I look forward to my opponent's response to this debate, as I am quite interested in what he might say. Thank you.
God, as defined by the (Christian) Bible, is not real.

Thanks to Con for making this debate. I am taking the role of Pro in that I stand for the 'Clash'. My opponent has the burden of proof as he has to affirm that the God of the Christian Bible exists. I as Pro do not have to affirm anything as it not proved that the God of the Christian Bible exists, merely that 'it' is believed to exist. No semantics intended, Resolution understood. Since we are in agreement about keeping semantics out of the debate, I want Con to affirm the existence of something as of yet unproven without begging the question by referring to the Bible. The Bible as is known, has been written by many men and translated from its original format many times. This has led to mistranslations, mispunctuations etc, ie the validity is not 100% for what is purported to be the word of God dictated to Man. I look forward to my opponents Round 2 argument that the God of the Christian Bible exists.
God, as defined by the (Christian) Bible, is not real.

Well, I must start out by admitting that I only find intense joy in debating religion now a days. Politics is fun and all, and ethics and morality are ok by themselves, but there is nothing like a good ol' religious debate. Besides, everyone knows that they secretly love cliche debates. Anywho, without further ado---The plan. I don't want Semantics about the resolution. You know what I mean. That's all about that. Round 1 (this one) I will present this prologue and Aff Pro will present reasons for, (as pro has a burden of proof. It's not right to have to prove a negative without the affirmative going first!) Rounds 2 and 3 will be arguments. New ones are permitted in these rounds. Round 4 is the rebuttal. No new arguments please. And now I will present the clash needed to start off this debate. 1. CLASH God, the Christian one, does not exist. I look forward to my opponent's response.
Viking's would win in a battle against Samurai's

I will be approaching my case in this way. First, the scenario regards a group of random Vikings against a group of random Samurai. P1: All Vikings are *not* warriors. [1]P2: All Samurai are warriors. [2]P3: Warriors defeat non-warriors in battle. P4: Random Vikings will have *both* warriors, and, primarily, non-warriors. C: Samurai defeat Vikings. This simple case allows me to resoundingly negate the resolution. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Viking's would win in a battle against Samurai's

I accept. BoP is on Pro to *prove* Vikings would defeat Samurai warriors in battle. By standard DDO maxims, I shall provide rules and definitions.Full ResolutionVikings would defeat Samurai warriors in battle. BoP is on Pro.Standard Rules1. First round is for acceptance. 2. No forfeiture. 3. No trolling, lawyering or kritiks of the topic. 4. All arguments and sources must be within the debate. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules and structure cannot be changed henceforth. DefinitionsViking - "any of the Scandinavian seafaring pirates and traders who raided and settled in many parts of north-western Europe in the 8th-11th centuries." [1]Win - "be successful or victorious in (a contest or conflict)." [2] Battle - "armed fighting; combat." [3] Samurai - "the military nobility of medieval and early-modern Japan." [4] Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Pro's case, Con's case or rebuttals (as BoP is on Pro)Round 3: Pro refutes, Con refutes and defendsRound 4: Pro refutes and defends, Con refutes and defendsRound 5: Pro refutes, defends and concludes, Con refutes, defends and concludesSources[1] Google ["define Viking"][2] Google ["define win"][3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Abortion is morally wrong.

RebuttalsSo tell me Con, is a woman killing a baby before it has a chance to live whenever she has her period and looses an egg? Well, you must think so if you think "we are killing fetuses before them have a chance to live."Please use proper English next time so I can understand you. The reason we are not giving fetuses a choice is because they would be incapable of choosing if we happened to ask them. But who would choose to die? Nobody would want to be aborted as a fetus. For that matter, they are incapable of feeling pain, thinking, digestion, or self awareness. A fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks. At 8 weeks, it has all the musles and organs needed to feel pain. Scientists even did studies that proved fetuses can feel pain. Souces at the bottom.Where, may I ask, are you getting these "facts?"I will post them at the bottom of this round. While the 3-5 day ovulation period is the most common time, you can be fertilized any time of the month, even during period. See: http://www.positive.org......Still, the number of rape victims that get pregnant is very low. Besides, only 1% of all abortions are because of rape.There are many methods of birth control in today's world. You can attempt natural birth control, by only having sex during ovulation. Or condoms can be used to prevent the flow of sperm. Also, pills such as daily pills or morning after supplements can eliminate the zygote. However, what if the girl ovulates at an unexpected time? Or what if your condom breaks, like some 4% of them do? Maybe the pill doesn't work either, as the chances of failure are always there? Abortion is a last resort for many people. A common "misconception" (no pun intended!) is that pro-choice people love abortion. Abortion is not a great thing, but in situations like teen pregnancies, it can be necessary.Again, a fetus is biologically a member of the human species, therefore you cannot morally kill an innocent fetus. There are cases when birth control fails, but they will just have to deal with it. Besides, it was their idea to have sex in the first place.New point- A fetus can feel painA fetus can feel pain at 8 weeks, and abortion causes alot of pain. Summary A fetus is biologically a member of the human species.You cannot morally kill an innocent human. You cannot morally kill a fetus. Sources: http://www.rainn.org... http://www.abortionfacts.com... http://news.discovery.com... http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu...
Who would win in a fight, Batman(pro) or Spiderman(con)

Okay, so first of all, in response to your argument about which villains Batman has defeated, I would like to point out that "Carnage, Darkseid, and Venom" are all Marvel Universe villains, and thus, Batman never would have had contact with them. And I would like to add that Batman was heavily defeated by Bane, when his back was broken, even though he lived. (According to our definition of win, it just means to take victor. Spiderman does not need to kill Batman in order to win. Victor means a person who defeats an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition. Defeat means to overcome or beat, but not necessarily kill.) Also, I can find no evidence that Batman ever took on the Justice League. There is one comic, "JLA: Tower of Babel", where Batman makes plans to dispose of the Justice league, but Ra's Al Ghul steals these plans and takes down the entire Justice League, including Batman, before he can take action. Besides that, I can find no evidence that Batman and the Martian Manhunter ever fought. They were both close allies who fought valiantly as members of the Justice League.
Who would win in a fight, Batman(pro) or Spiderman(con)

Batman has Batarangs which would cut cleanly through the web. Batman is way more aware of his surroundings because he trained with frikin ninjas! He also has mastered 127 kinds of martial arts. With Spiderman only knowing "the way of the spider". So He has NOTHING on Batman. Batman also has 12 degrees, mastered escape artistry, and pushed himself and is the most physically fit human on the planet. Also Batman's suit is basically a giant tazer. In His utility belt, Batman carries a grapple gun, gas mask, tear gas, smoke pellets, and tracers. His batarangs also come in explosive, electric, and knock-out dart. He also survived getting his back broken, desinigration, and being a living time bomb that could wipe-out the entire galaxy.
Who would win in a fight, Batman(pro) or Spiderman(con)

Spider man is a superhuman, meaning that he has special abilities and powers that not everyone possesses. According to Marvel.com "Peter can cling to most surfaces, has superhuman strength (able to lift 10 tons optimally) and is roughly 15 times more agile than a regular human" (Marvel). Alongside these remarkable characteristics, his web slinging capabilities give him an unparalleled weapon with incredible versatility and multi purpose usage. Not only this, but his "spidey" sense allows for "an early warning detection system linked with his superhuman kinesthetics, enabling him the ability to evade most any injury, provided he doesn't cognitively override the autonomic reflexes" (Marvel). His "natural" abilities allow him to out perform opponents such as Batman, who use primarily machines and martial arts, as seen by his victories over the Green Goblin and Dr. Otto Octavius, to name two of his more familiar enemies. As depicted by marvel, his spider sense allows him to evade injury, and if he stays focused in a battle, can pretty much stay unscathed. His special physical abilities allow him to move quickly, and though he may not be able to deliver strong blows like Batman can, he fights with his surroundings and his wit, delivering smaller blows, and weaving a web around his enemy (literally). As for Spiderman's enemies, he regularly takes on enemies of an extremely high caliber, some, if not all, possessing extreme superhuman abilities. A few examples are Rhino, Sandman, Venom, Scorpion, Hobgoblin, and that is just to name a few. It is important to note that Batman does not posses superhuman abilities as these villains do, so to Spiderman, who has had quite a bit of practice fighting superhuman, he would not be as big a challenge. The biggest thing Batman has over Spiderman, is simply his tech and his brain. Batman is a considerable foe when it comes to contests of intellectual fervor, as displayed by the amount of dastardly psychopaths and sociopaths he must face. Spiderman is no dummy though, and has been able to stand his own against some very intelligent villains, such as J. Jonah Jameson, who is basically the Lex Luthor in the Spiderman Universe. But, at the end of the day, if you to strip the suit off, Spiderman would win in a contest of pure physical dispute. Finally, Spiderman is a photographer, which means he has a different way of looking at things. This coupled with his Spider sense is an invaluable tool in looking for ways around Batman's defenses, and methods by which he can come out on top. It is all about the angles...literally.
Who would win in a fight, Batman(pro) or Spiderman(con)

Batman has beaten The entire Justice League, death, and many other villains, including, but not limited to, Carnage, Darkseid, and Venom, who regularly beats Spiderman. Batman also has the Thrasher, Stealth Suit, Hellbat Armor, and The Justice-Buster. You obviously know what I mean about fight Mr.Smarty-Pants! And besides batman beat the goddamn Martian Manhunter for God's sake! And there are more than 1 meanings of the word "fight", for example, "a violent confrontation or struggle", and "take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons".
Who would win in a fight, Batman(pro) or Spiderman(con)

Resolved, that Spiderman would defeat Batman in a fight. I defend this argument on the following grounds that 1). Spiderman has superhuman abilities, giving him a distinct advantage over the Dark Knight, that 2). Spiderman battles foes of a higher caliber than Batman does, and that 3). Peter Parker's profession as a journalistic photographer gives him an ability to analyze his surroundings with a unique perspective that Batman does not possess. The definitions concerning this debate are as follows. "Win" is defined as "to be the victor in" according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "Fight" is defined as "to contend in battle or physical combat" according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Wars are never good.

I have recently read a post by charleslb where he or she states that all wars are moral and unjust, and they are only for imperialistic reasons. I strongly disagree with this statement. I'd like to start off by pointing out that EVERY war has a reason. World War 2, which is the war that my opponent poked at, was started because Hitler wanted to take over the world. If it weren't for the allies intervention we'd all be catholic, caucasian, have blonde hair and blue eyes, and be saying "Heil Hitler". I dare my opponent to prove World War 2 was unnecessary and only for imperialistic reasons. Another war that I will use for example is the American Revolution. This war was totally necessary. If the United States had not engaged in this war, then Americans would have no say in their government, we'd be highly taxed, and we'd be drinking tea every day. Therefore, this war was also totally necessary. The last war that I will use dates back to ancient Greece. Some of you may relate to this battle from the movie 300. The battle of Thermopylae was between the Greeks and Persians. Xerxes, the Persian king wanted all of Greece to surrender unconditionally. The Greeks, obviously, did NOT want this, and led by Spartan king Leonidas, they marched to battle at the Thermopylae Pass. This was a tight zone where the numbers of of persians did not matter because they would be funneled down. There was a secret mountain pass that was guarded by some soldiers, but the soldiers weren't there when the Persians came through. Leonidas evacuated all of the troops except for his 300 and some other soldiers who wanted to stay. In the end, the Greeks that stayed were slaughtered. That, though, is besides the point. The point is that the Greeks fought this battle, and the war that encompassed it for their freedom. If it had not been for this war, Greece would have died out long before the Macedonians invaded. In conclusion, I am supporting that all wars have a reason, and they are generally not imperialistic reasons. I sincerely hope that charleslb accepts my challenge and tries to win this debate. NOTE: I have no specific internet sites to support my arguments. The information that I have used comes my notes from when I was in High School/ Middle School.
The Death Penalty Ought to be Banned

The Death Penalty ought to be banned. A. It is cruel and unusual B. Innocent people die C. It improves our relationship with other Western Democracies A. It is cruel and unusual. Ought being a moral term, not legal, I'm not going to mention the Constitution or the 14th Amendment (which applies the Bill of Rights to state governments). I am though going to show why the death penalty is cruel And unusual. It's cruel because it's a terrible way to die. The victim is made a spectacle of, with the death audienced by political figures and journalists. The victim is tied down and forcibly injected with poison. The victim is given months, perhaps years, for the weight of impending extinction, a hopeless type of wait where life loses meaning since it's a death that cannot be deflected. And of course it's cruel because it's a view shared by many in both America and abroad. It's unusual because we are the Only Western Democracy where the death penalty is legal. Most nations with governments and laws heavily influenced by the Enlightenment ideals of Locke or Montesquieu, have eschewed the death penalty, making its use in America therefore unusual. B. Innocent people die People are convicted of crimes, including capital crimes, on a regular basis. But despite everything possible to ensure a fair system where criminals are convicted only when the evidence is convincing beyond all reasonable doubt, let's face it, the jury, even when there's 12 of them, are still only human. Of the inmates on death roll today, how many are guilty? Most of them probably, but for the State, which exists to protect the people, to execute an innocent individual? That's a monstrosity. A perversion of what the State stands for. Furthermore, as time progresses and criminal forensics technology becomes more and more advanced, our understanding of what actually took place in a crime scene becomes more and more accurate. DNA testing is just the first step. If we sentence those convicted to life imprisonment, then we give advances in forensics technology the time it would take to conclusively vindicate or convict a felon. Life sentences increases the likelihood of innocent convicts being vindicated. C. It improves our relationship with other Western Democracies Strong diplomatic relations are useful. It never hurts to have a good buddy around. With the steady weakening of the American dollar to the Euro, and with the European Union poised to become a huge force in the international economy (which in truth it already is), the furthering of relations with the European Union is worth more than killing a few hundred inmates who might be innocent isn't it? What's more important, the economic health of America / potential allies for our impending invasion of Iran? Or the lethal injections of potentially innocent falsely convicted Americans who would otherwise be imprisoned and kept safely away from society even if they were guilty?
Legalized Abortion Has Done More Good Than Harm.

>It is a woman's right to choose. The baby is part of her own body, and without her, the baby would not be living. Notice that your arguments are getting a bit thinner now that your other debate is over and you don't have someone to copy from. However, we can see that AKMath has given two arguments: >The baby is part of her own body This is factually incorrect. [1] >without her, the baby would not be living. I have already addressed this point. The woman has responsibility to maintain the life of the fetus since by creating it (or allowing it to be created) she caused it to depend on her. If terrorists set up a missile launcher on Joe's property, he can't set it off just because it's "his property". If they set up a trigger that will blow up New York if destroyed, Joe can't destroy it because "without the trigger the people in New York would not be living". Because Joe failed to guard his property (or similarly to most pregnancy cases, set the trigger up himself) he can't destroy the trigger, blowing up the city of New York. 1. https://www.epm.org...)