BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos.

Well, how sad. I don't agree that any of this is a cause of suffering. These animals are well fed, well taken care of, and typically have good company, be it their own brethrin, or the people that take care of them, depending on the animal. These animals suffer necessarily less than the average house pet, what with abuse being easier to get away with in such situations. I'm sure you've heard of animal hoarders. Your argument regarding migration seems to be nothing more than, "migration, so there." You've given no reason for me to believe such conditions cause suffering. Zoo keepers must have the resources to provide comfortable environments for the animals. Sure, they are largely synthetic, but this doesn't necessarily cause pain. Take the elephant in a zoo. It doesn't need to migrate in search of food. It gets all of the food it needs. It's true that they have no freedom, or very little, at that. They are constantly watched and enclosed. This would surely be a miserable environment - for a human. Animals, however, don't share the human sense of shame. They don't look out at the world with longing for a better life. Quite the opposite, they accept what they have; they can be content in such environments, unlike most humans.
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos.

Maybe you are right and not allowing natural migration to take place is not cruel. Yes, but it is unnatural and not the way it should be. Animals need to migrate, whether it be in need of a temperature change, to find food in a place more abundant or for mating reasons. Take the elephant it migrates to find food during the wet and dry seasons. But this cannot take place in a zoo, where the animal is restrained to an area, where it stands all day entertaining people. So I think I won this particular argument about migration... Would you not agree? A point that you might of thought to bring up is scientists. Scientists are common visitors at zoos, they come, they poke, they prod, they drug, they examine, they take notes and leave. Have you ever put yourself into a animals shoes and imagined what the constant testing and examining must be like? Think about how it feels to always being watched or studying, never left alone. Scientists can bugger off and test animals else where, in the wild, where the animals are behaving naturally. And yet another point would be the natural habitat. Try as they might, zoo's never get the habitat for the animals quite right. The rocks barricading the animals in are almost always fake and the greenery scattered throughout the area often is useless to the animals, true they try hard to simulate the animals habitat in the wild but it is never right, maybe the greenery and shrubbery in it changes, the fact that they can never get out doesn't. Animals in zoo have no freedom. They are trapped inside a world of photographers, people, scientists, cages and zookeepers.
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos.

"Migration, natural migration, something than can clearly not take place in zoos. Argue that." My opponent is correct, natural migration cannot take place for animals within zoos. How this is an example of cruelty taking place, however, I cannot see. Google defines cruel as such: 1. Callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering. 2. Behavior that causes pain or suffering to a person or animal. Though I may not live inside the mind of an animal within a zoo, I can only reason that such inhibitions of instictual nature do not cause pain or suffering. An inhibition of natural behavior is not necessarily a cause of suffering; for instance, it isn't instictually natural for humans to cover themselves with clothing. I would challenge my opponent to bring to light any pain or suffering within zoos that is necessarily a result of keeping them there, as opposed to their natural habitats.
Izbo's Syllogism is Invalid

First of all thanks for wasting my time on semantics. http://atheism.about.com... valid is grounded and since atheist and not theist mean exactly the same thing they are interchangable. For anybody that doesn't understand this you can check it out here: http://www.englishclub.com... It even gives the example. Now, he wants to start with the he part, this is really a weak attempt and cheap underhanded tactic that was a waste of time to write out. It did not need to be said and was implied in our conversation. He is really reaching here and I am not wasting my time on nonsense like this. It was valid as the premise conclude that he is not a theist or the same thing is an atheist, by very definition of the word. At the end of the day it is not my fault my opponent does not understand meanings.
Izbo's Syllogism is Invalid

For a syllogism to be formed correctly, it must contain a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. Each of these three propositions must contain exactly two terms, and the syllogism must contain exactly 3 terms. [1]Izbo's syllogism contains 5 terms, and I will simplify the syllogism to be more clear:Major premise: All A's respond with BMinor premise: C is not BConclusion: D is not an A, which makes D an EA - TheistB - The characteristic of answering yes to the question 'Do you believe in God? 'C - The response 'I don't know. 'D - He(this happens to be in reference to a specific person on DDO, but that is irrelevant)E - AtheistClearly, Izbo's syllogism contains more than 3 terms. The fallacy of four(or more) terms applies. Neither premise alludes to 'He' or 'Atheist'. As such, the logic cannot flow from major to minor to conclusion, and the syllogism is therefore invalid. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Izbo's Syllogism is Invalid

This is Izbo's recent syllogism:Premise 1: A theist must answer yes to the question do you believe in god.Premise 2: I don't know is not a yes to the questionconclusion- He is not a theist, and not a theist is the same as atheist.I will show this syllogism to be invalid.1st round is acceptance only. Burden of proof is shared. No rebuttals, only one round of presenting arguments for each side. Both sides can attempt to define words as they wish.
Video games do not cause children to commit crimes

Thank you for your points and good luck. I believe that video games DO cause children children to commit crimes. Children get influenced by friends,family and society. But they also get influenced by television and video games. While some video games have educational content,many of the most popular games promote negative themes,such as: 1.The killing of people or animals. 2.The use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. 3.Criminal behaviour and disrespect of the law. 4.Sexual exploitation and abuse towards women. 5.Racial,sexual and gender stereotypes. 6.Foul language. All of these things can affect the child's brain. Yes it is just a video game,but MOST children take these negative themes out in real life. Studies show that children exposed to violence can become: 1. "Numb" to the horror of violence. 2. More aggressive. 3. depressed. Some children accept violence as a way to solve/handle problems. If children think that violence is a way to solve/handle things,they will cause crimes. If children think that the killing of people or animals are all right they will cause crimes. It affects the brain causing them to think its right and actually doing it in real life,thinking its fun. There has been heaps of real life incidents of children being violent in real life due to playing video games After students Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris opened fire in their Colorado high school in 1999 -- shooting 20 people and killing 13 -- Linda Sanders filed a lawsuit. Her husband was a teacher at Columbine and among the dead. The media revealed that Harris and Klebold played a lot of violent video games, including "Wolfenstein 3D," "Doom," and "Mortal Kombat." Sanders named multiple video game publishers, including Sony and Nintendo, in the suit as well as Time Warner and Palm Pictures since the shooters had apparently watched "The Basketball Diaries," in which a character uses a shotgun to kill students at his high school. So in conclusion, video games DO cause children to commit crimes. Thank you
Video games do not cause children to commit crimes

So here's my point that video games do not commit crimes which is very true it may make the child lack in intelligence but not violence that they would be able to commit crimes in such a way. 1. The purpose of a video game is child amusement/entertainment which means video games were not meant to motivate crime 2.'Studies have shown that video games do not harm the brain or cause violent acts' http://www.minnpost.com... http://www.geeknewscentral.com... http://www.scribd.com... http://www.justice.govt.nz... Reasons By gathering all the evidence I can show that video games do not harm the brain and support the quote. People commit crimes in many ways because of this *Gene cells in their body which are inherited from relatives, family members, and your parents. If a child was born from the acts of a criminal they would have that criminal behavior inside part of their body *Experience from a human bein could cause violent crimes just like how batman's parents got killed and from that experience he started to become a hero. Remember this is an example so I am just giving an example about an experience. Experience that would turn a person into a criminal is that something must have happened in their life that was so tragic that they would want to go and kill. Another example is that after the Adam Lanzer had a problem with having a normal life and interaction so this shows what could have caused what happened at this day. In the news papers they also stated this 'He kept tabs of trigger happy video games' this does not show what the show that video games caused it. Adam Lanzer was unstable so keeping him near a gun was not the right choice which his mom had assault weapons in his house. *Revenge is another way of crime being caused because during the incident of Atiq Hennis, Anthony Hennis was a criminal who had about twenty three arrest records. 'The shooters brother had a old beef with Anthony Hennis' which shows that the criminal and murderer of the baby wanted revenge *Drugs and Achohal can be another cause because those type of drinks changes the human behavior and effect the brain. Revising To go back to the statement that video games do not effect the brain. To support this, studies and research shows that video games could decrease the physical violence of children. Now here is what many people are saying is that GTA is a game about killing at random. That is not what the game is about, that's what the users choose to do and you do not have to do missions with killing you can just live your life as a good guy. CoD is also another game people think motivates crime. Call of duty is a game about army's and military not any game with stealing goods from others and killing innocents. Children who buy games and commits crimes after they played were like that before they got it. In conclusion, video would not have an effect on your brain in that matter we can all say video games are meant to be enjoyable.
Video games do not cause children to commit crimes

Sorry for forfeiting the round, I did have other debates to do and so I have run out of time. You said: People just kill animals for their goods and money and even if you Ban video games people will keep killing elephants for ivory. Yes,people kill animals for their goods and money, but in video games they show horrific violence. Humans kill the animals in video games in an abusive way. They kill animals for no reason. (not for their goods and money.) You said children were already bad before they played these video games,but Dylan wasn't a person that would kill someone,but when he played the video games his brain got influenced and he shot innocent lives. Also to make it clear,im not saying to ban video games I just believe that we need to be more strict with what we put into children's minds. Some things are so graphic and children shouldn't even be looking at this kind of stuff. Studies show that if you look at something so graphic or horrific you will get criminal behaviour or even be traumatised. Its not healthy for your brain. I know that even if you ban video games things like rape and murder will still happen,but if these games that promote these negative themes get banned, the rape and murder rates would go lower. (better than going higher.) I do know that not all video games have shooting in them,in fact some of them are educational. But like I said its not good to promote negative themes. Their companies that are to stop rape and murder but how can we stop it if video games are promoting these themes? I thank you for this debate and wish you good luck. But I still believe STRONGLY that video games do cause children to commit crimes. Thank you.
Video games do not cause children to commit crimes

Con has forfeited and never stated any evidence that video games make kids depressed or aggressive. He didn't also site sources. My arguments still stand and have not been rebutted and stay on the topic con this about video games not TV Games have quadrupled 1995-2008 and there has been a massive drop in arrest record reports. Just to show the studies of video games say that "children get into less physical fights" this shows how video games do not cause our violence. If you banned video games there will be still more murders and school attacks 2. The Supreme Court went up against the government about trying to banned video games as shown in the link below games. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... Like I said just banning video games there would be more mass murders and it will put lots of gaming industries out of money just because people think video games persuade children to criminal behavior. 3. Again to state that cons argument was wrong 'killing the people and animals' just exactly what I said still kill for ivory and animal skins and you cannot change that there will be still more and more poachers and about the killing of others that"s something that will continue to happen like rape, gun crimes, kidnapping will still happen no matter what. Not every video game has shooting in it.
Video games do not cause children to commit crimes

Lets see like I said before about the video games could make them mad but it does not cause any homicide behavior. 1. Dylan and Harris were the two shooters. I can show that video games do not cause violence because studies have shown that mass murders are caused by mental illness or a experience. Dylan was known for swearing at teachers and arguing with his co workers. Both were bullied and was unpopular.The game doom was just the layout it did not influence them to kill.Harris had anger management problems and had lots of rage. The game was just the layout. The full report also states that in his paper said "I want to die this world does not know who I f_ing am" he also wanted to kill everyone with him. This tragic was caused by the experience of bullying or how there life was.Video games have nothing to do with it. 2. Well you are saying children think that the things on video game influence them to do something that is right and you involve TV shows. Well here's what I am going to say * Children do not take these things on the real life of course it happens to themselves like I said Dylan was not a very great student because he cursed at teachers. Of course I doubt the game doom had nothing to do with it and the game doom never had no foul language because its all about shooting. So this shows how kids were already bad before they had the game. *http://www.chinalawblog.com... China has more video games then we do in USA and the crime rate is extremely low. This also shows how video games do not cause violence and it also shows that its the people who choose to do the crime. 3. People just kill animals for their goods and money and even if you Bann video games people will keep killing elephants for ivory. In conclusion video games do not cause children to cause crime and that's, that.
George Zimmerman is innocent.

1. Apologies I meant his statements made to the police upon questioning. There were no witnesses that saw who instigated the fight, they only saw the two fighting. 2. You were the one that stated Martins conversation saying that he was being followed, then he was outside his fathers fianc"e's house. Zimmerman himself had said that he followed Martin. And its rather difficult to provide hard evidence when no one saw the incident start and the only other witness was killed. According to Zimmerman, Martin walked back out from the houses and around his vehicle and back the way he came when Zimmerman followed him. The only evidence there is to go off that Martin instigated the attack Zimmermans word alone. In a typical trial that is not solid evidence! You have provided no evidence to support that Martin attacked first other than Zimmermans account so that should not be viable as evidence. These are the only solid facts 1. Martin had not been caught committing a crime by Zimmermans own account 2. No one saw who started the fight 3. If Zimmerman had not followed him this would never have happened. http://youtu.be...
George Zimmerman is innocent.

Your first argument:"did he instigate the conflict that resulted in an innocent boy losing his life, yes! He had not caught Martin in any crime so therefore he should not have pursued him. " 1) Zimmerman instigated a confrontation but he didn't instigate the illegal assault Trayvon committed on Zimmerman. Martin's assault was unwarranted for such a situation. 2)Again, by following Trayvon, Zimmerman did not commit therefore he did not do anything wrong and this should not be the basis for deciding whether he was innocent or not. Your second argument: "Zimmerman followed Martin there(by his own admission in court)" 1) Now stop right there because there is one big problem. That problem is that Zimmerman never testified in court. So he could have never said that. 2) All my sources contradict what you just said involving Zimmerman chasing Trayvon to the point of the incident. And you have not provided any source that supports your claim. Your third argument:"Zimmerman's father is a retired magistrate judge..." Now the rest of this is pure speculation. No solid evidence shows that Zimmerman did this for the purposes that you stated. Now, you have still failed to show that Zimmerman started the fight. You haven't contradicted that Trayvon travelled 70 yards to brutally assault Zimmerman with proper sources. Also my third and fourth arguments remain untouched while all my attacked arguments still stand.
George Zimmerman is innocent.

Not in those words exactly but by stating the Martin conversation. Martin had attempted to lose him only to be followed hence "why are you following me?" moving on. Did he break a law in following Martin no, but did he instigate the conflict that resulted in an innocent boy losing his life, yes! He had not caught Martin in any crime so therefore he should not have pursued him. As you stated in your first argument Martin noticed he was being watched and that he had ran. Then he was "by the back of his father's fianc"e's house" Zimmerman followed Martin there (by his own admission in court) and then Martin confronted him. Martin had made it back to his destination only to have Zimmerman right behind him. Now if you were being followed by someone you never met would you lead him back to the house you were heading back to? No you would not bring someone back like that. Martin had no idea what Zimmermans intentions might be. For all he know he could have shot up the house when he got inside involving other people. Zimmerman's father is a retired magistrate judge for he supreme court. Now a person in that position has the power to pull some strings hence Zimmerman making it known upon his arrest who his father was. Zimmerman was in trouble with the law twice shortly after his trial ended. One of the times he assaulted his wife and threatened her family. Now is it too far fetched to think that having failed to get into the police academy he was eager to wield authority and he thought a young kid was the perfect person to bully around.
George Zimmerman is innocent.

"Zimmerman had not right to chase down Martin when he had not been caught committing and crimes" Zimmerman had every right as a concerned citizen to follow an individual who he deemed suspicious. ""He clearly did not heed the dispatchers advice because he continued to follow Martin as stated in your first argument" First of all, my first argument doesn't state Zimmerman continued to follow Zimmerman. Second, even if he did continue to search, he broke no law because a police dispatcher has no authority and it isn't a crime to follow someone. "After failing to loose his assailant Martin confronted Zimmerman.Martin did not show aggression when obviously being followed instead he tried to avoid a conflict. Zimmerman persisted creating the situation that was about to unfold" Martin didn't fail to loose his assailant. Martin traversed about 70 yards to confront Zimmerman. Sounds more like Zimmerman lost Martin. This is true because the incident happened 70 yards away from where Trayvon Martin was staying. There is no clear evidence whether Zimmerman was walking back to his car or kept searching Trayvon, but there is clear evidence that Trayvon traveled 70 yards to confront Zimmerman and assault him. Sources: http://www.capitalisminstitute.org... http://www.dlas.org...
George Zimmerman is innocent.

Martin did indeed run as can be heard by Zimmerman in his call to the police and he proceeded to pursue martin. Zimmerman had not right to chase down Martin when he had not been caught committing and crimes and the dispatcher had told him "we don't need you to do that" but he clearly did not heed the dispatchers advice because he continued to follow Martin as stated in your first argument. After failing to loose his assailant Martin confronted Zimmerman. Martin did not show aggression when obviously being followed instead he tried to avoid a conflict. Zimmerman persisted creating the situation that was about to unfold.
George Zimmerman is innocent.

Argument 1: Trayvon Martin was the instigator of the fight. Sequence of events according to Rachel Jeantel: After Trayvon told her a man was watching him she told Trayvon he should run. She could hear that he started running. The phone then disconnected. Trayvon then called her back after 20 seconds or so and said he was "by the back of his father's fiancee's house" (where Trayvon was staying). He was breathing hard at that point and it was clear that he had been running. Trayvon then started talking to her in a low voice, "almost like a whisper". Trayvon continued talking to her in a low voice for a couple of minutes and then told her he saw the man again. Trayvon then went up to the man and said "Why you following me for? " and the man replied "What are you doing around here? " Argument 2: The police dispatcher did not tell Zimmerman to stay in his car. From the audio recording, it's clear Zimmerman had already started on foot in the direction Martin had run. After about 10 seconds when he tells this to the dispatcher, the dispatcher simply says, "we don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman says "OK". After a few more seconds, the pace of his breathing slows to normal and it seems clear that he is walking (no longer running or jogging). He and the dispatcher then start to discuss where he should meet with the police and Zimmerman tells the dispatcher he doesn't know where Martin went. Zimmerman later told the police he had stopped trying to find Martin by that point, but there is no way to tell what he did after hanging up. Argument 3: Eyewitness account is similar to Zimmerman's. Jonathon Good was a neighbor who ended up seeing the fight between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Immediately after the conflict, he told police that there was a "darker-skinned guy on top pretty much throwing down blows. " Argument 4: Zimmerman was told by police officers that that whole video was caught on tape and he was relieved. Sources: . http://www.capitalisminstitute.org... . http://www.dlas.org...