BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Farm animals deserve the same rights as dogs

One article of universal human rights will lead you to deploying the same rights for farm animals. http://www.un.org... That link displays all 30 articles of universal human rights, but I will only focus on Article #3: Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security (Article 3) I don't believe all animals deserve every right a human has, such as Article 17, which is the right to own property. But I do believe farm animals deserve these basic rights [as stated in Article 3], which have been granted to humans. I would also like to point out; many different states within the US have already granted these rights for domestic and wild animals. More rights have been granted to animals like dogs and cats, but any violation of these rights can become a felony or misdemeanor. The challenger in this debate would need to explain why humans [and some animals like dogs] are deserving of these basic rights, but not farm animals. And the animals I am specifically referring to are chickens, cows and pigs. These are the most poorly treated animals within our society, in which none of these rights have been granted to. You [as the challenger] would need to pinpoint a key difference between these factory farmed animals, and explain why you are justified in not granting them the same rights as you [or dogs]. And if that difference in the animal would justify a denying of these basic rights, would the same be true if that difference was active in you [or humans]?
gay marriage

Pro's argument uses dubious logic. Just because something is called marriage it does not mean that it should be accepted as marriage.I could easily replace the word 'gay' with something else. This highlights the absurdity in Pro's argument.'Incestuous marriage should be accepted because it is the definition of marriage. That is why its called incestuous marriage.'or'Child marriage should be accepted because it is the definition of marriage. That is why its called child marriage.'Clearly, these are no grounds for accepting incestuous or child marriages.I will also point out that the burden of proof is on Pro, since those who are pro-gay-marriage are requesting that the government sanction marriages between those of the same gender. The government does not do things for no reason (or at least it shouldn't), so those who advocate gay marriage have the burden of proof to give a sufficient reason why the government should sanction gay marriages.
Is Batman a superhero

"Most people would accept Batman as a superhero not because of the definitions but because who Batman as a person. " This may be true, but you, myself, and our audience are not most people. We are extremely enlightened as members of Debate. org and know that, as others have said, "A lack of precision is dangerous when the margin of error is small. " Let's remember that the definition of a Superhero that we've agreed on is, "an exceptionally skillful or successful person. " Lex Luthor is certainly an exceptionally skillful and successful fictional person. You've argued that Lex Luthor's status as a villain prevents him from being a Superhero, but the definition does not specify that an exceptional skillful or successful person must be a hero, or not a villain. People might believe that the requirement of being a hero is implied, but I will answer the requirement that the person be real in the second definition is also implied. I will concede that the implication of being good or not evil disqualifies Lex Luthor from being a Superhero, but reassert that the requirement that a person be real is also implied in the second definition. Batman is a very great hero, but as a fictional character without super powers he does not meet the standard of a superhero under either definition agreed upon.
Is Batman a superhero

First off all, you cannot use Lex Luthor as an example of the word superhero because we all know he is a villain and since the second definition means an exceptionally skillful and successful person therefore he is a super villain. As for Felicity Smoak I would guess she is a superhero because of the use of the second definition. This topic is very controversial and debated. Most people would accept Batman as a superhero not because of the definitions but because who Batman as a person. His will and his doctrines set him apart from other superheros, he is simply different.
Is Batman a superhero

I completely agree that Batman is very skillful and successful. The second definition does not specify that a person must be real, but it is implied by the use of fictional in the first definition. If a fictional person can be a superhero by being extraordinarily skillful and successful, then Felicity Smoak, the Arrow's extraordinarily skilled at computers helper who becomes CEO of a huge corporation, is a superhero. Even worse, Lex Luther must be a superhero. He is a person and he is very skillful at evil and successful at earning money. Felicity and Lex don't qualify as superheros under the second definition because they are not real people. The second definition is what allows a great Mom to be a superhero. She doesn't fight evil, but she is a real person who is extraordinarily skillful and successful at raising her children. That's what makes her Super Mom, a real superhero. Fictional people must be heroes with super powers to be superheros. Batman, although a true great hero, is not a superhero.
Is Batman a superhero

I accept your definition of a superhero. The definition shows that the word, "superhero" has two usages. The first is , "a fictional hero having extraordinary or superhuman power". The second is, "an exceptionally skillful or successful person. " Your argument points to the second usage. You assert that since Batman is exceptionally skillful he is a superhero. But the second usage has two conditions which must be met to satisfy the definition of superhero, and Batman doesn't meet the second condition. Batman is not a person! Batman is a fictional character, and so the second usage can not apply to him. In the first usage, although he is a fictional hero, he does not have extraordinary or superhuman powers. Therefore Batman is not a superhero.
Religion/church is the biggest scam and has manipulated mankind early on when we didn't know better.

ok i admit humans are flawed and that many people have made a fair profit in cheating people out of money but i am sayig that relgion is esintial because it drives people if your relgion is christianity, evolution, muslim, any thing i belive it to be nesscary cause every person has an inner goal to find were they are comming from were they are going
Religion/church is the biggest scam and has manipulated mankind early on when we didn't know better.

Well i am talking about religion but im pretty sure your not that stubborn as to still beleive in creation, with tons of evidence and common sense against the "theory" of "god" magically "creating" people out of thin air. So getting past that point. I am debating on one thing, and that is that 99% of religions are wasting your time due to a manipulation of your ancestors minds when they didn't know better. Some religion's philosophies and beliefs are understandbale and even some i do like. But how can i beleive such when those principles and beleif are built on such a fictional base of god/heaven and all that good stuff
Religion/church is the biggest scam and has manipulated mankind early on when we didn't know better.

ok you are trying to debate two things at once here you are sayint that the church is wrong well yes its flawed its run by man everything man does is flawed on some level. next it is not the churches fault that its people did not learn to read and write we still had the same genes and were basically the same ok now we have had another couple hundred years to find things out yes we consider ourselves smarter yet we still deal with the same issues. Next we you say relgion is flawed are you saying relgions or christianity
Homework is a waste of time

1. Homework is a mandatory exercise sheet assigned by the teacher that student must complete outside of class. A students time is precious and therefore he has to allocate it wisely. When a student attempts to understand course material by reading the textbook, he is improving his ability to process linguistic information and to make lasting semantic memories. This is because, it build patterns in his mind on how to connecting the meanings of words. He can then use this skill set for other courses. On the other hand, when he fills out an exercise sheet, he is only drilling the pattern that relate to that particular subject thereby only preparing for the test of that subject. Since he is not improving any practical skill set, the following years, he will struggle more with his new courses. Therefore, homework is ineffective in the longer run making it a waste of time. However, doing mindless tedious work does not just take away from his academics, it also prevents him from using this time to improve his social skills by socialising which he could give friends and romantic relationships. All of which, would help prepare him for life outside of school. Developing his social skills will even help his career as it teaches him how to influence people. In addition, when a student gets a career, he ends up using only a small portion of the knowledge that he learned at school. Therefore, what he mainly relies on is the previous skill sets that he acquired. Students must also concern themselves with their health and doing unnecessary course takes away time that they could spend preparing healthy meals or exercising.
smoking should be banned

Straight to the args then? Ok then. 2nd and 3rd round will be for rebuttals. Now on to my points. I will start with the weaker one 1) Litter Reduction : Cigarette butts account for millions of pieces of litter annually and detracts from a location"s aesthetic. If smokers would dispose of their waste properly when they"re in public places, this might not be an issue, but the fact of the matter is that they don"t. The evidence is there, littering attractive buildings and the surrounding landscape with cigarette butts. A smoking ban would reduce litter. Now onto the main/stronger point: 2) Health and influence : We all know we want to be respected and adknowledged. In fact, some people would do whatever it takes to do just that. When these such people see some person smoking and being cool, they start thinking wow. This guy is so cool andthey start adpoting that habit. Why is this so bad that I mention it you may ask. Well we all know what smoking does to our health with many people falling victim to lung cancer and, commonly, addiction. These two dangers merge togther to show a scenario of when one cannot get enough of ciggarettes and goes to the extent of bearing lung cancer. Now back to the imaginative scenario of the people being influenced by the person. Notice that I said "commonly" while talking about addiction. This way, there is an incredibly high chance that both parties, the original wrongdoer and the influenced one, will become addicted to drugs and, eventually, meet each other in the hospital. (That was a joke for the record but since this is a debate, I didnt make a really funny one) As you may have already realized, this one action, done by one person, lead to danger of 2 people. While this doesnt happen 100% of the time, the chance is a chance and a chance enough. You should never ignore even a 1% chance in a debate which, therefore, makes it a valid point. Status quo is, according to reasearch, "More than 16 million people already have at least one disease from smoking. More than 20 million Americans have died because of smoking since 1964, including approximately 2.5 million deaths due to exposure to secondhand smoke." This shows you how deadly a ciggarette can be and therefore, as the government's duty to create a safe and lively enviroment to live in, ciggarettes should be banned. In all, i have told you about litter reduction by banning smoking which has upped my stance, and stated how contagious and deadly smoking can be and why we should ban it which both ups my stance and dissaproves of yours. I await my opponent's rebuttals in the next round and look forward to having a good debate.
Biological Theory of Evolution Should Be Taught in All Public Schools

LWell, quite an interesting reply. Let's examine the following statements made by my opponent" "i am okay with Biological Evolution being taught as a theory in public schools. If that is all my opponent wishes me to say then I suppose we have tied this debate because I do not have a disagreement with him. I just want that theory to be given no more bias then creationism or even a physicalist view" My opponent has admitted that Evolution should be taught in public schools but in doing so he claims a tie. This is entirely inappropriate and illogical. The topic of debate is whether evolution should be taught in public schools and he has been persuaded from being against to being in favor of that position. The rest of his statements are totally irrelevant to this debate -- 'red herrings'. If my opponent wishes to engage in another debate concerning the pedagogy of science, the evidential support or merits of evolution, the driving mechanisms of evolution, endosymbiotic theory, whether creationism should be taught in religion class, or anything else related to evolution than I suggest he start another debate. However, a word of warning: Please do not misrepresent my positions or statements anymore. I clearly stated the level of support for evolution in percentages. Also you say you want Evolution to be given no more bias than creationism. Science class teaches science and Evolution is one of the most tested and accepted theories in science. Religion isn't taught in public school, but if it was I would be in favor of it including Creationism.
Biological Theory of Evolution Should Be Taught in All Public Schools

My opponent claims that evolution "...is a theory that cannot be taught as a scientific fact.". Given the topic of debate, we can extract the following implicit argument from my opponent's aforementioned statement: P1 Evolution is a scientific theory but not a scientific fact P2 Only scientific facts should be taught in public schools C. Therefore, evolution should not be taught in public schools The first premise is contentious. Most scientists regard Evolution as both a theory and a fact including renowned biologists Jerry Coyne, Steven Jay Gould, and Ken Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Of course, there are also scientists and philosophers that do not consider Evolution as fact. However, the disagreement of whether, or to what degree, Evolutionary Theory should be considered a fact does not signify that the theory is losing scientific support. Somewhere between 95% and 100% of scientists accept the central tenets of Evolution (http://www.patheos.com...). The disagreement about calling Evolution a fact or not is a semantic one. Dictionary.com for example, defines scientific fact as Noun1. scientific fact - an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final) But philosophers and other sources define fact differently. Hence, the disagreement. For sake of argument, lets accept Evolution as theory but not fact. Even that the case, the second premise is demonstrably absurd. Consider the following list (non-exhaustive) of scientific theories not universally regarded as fact : Cell theory, germ theory, theory of relativity, quantum theory, atomic theory, big bang theory. Those theories are currently taught in public schools. If my opponent thinks that Evolutionary Theory should not be taught in public school because it is not scientific fact then, to be consistent, he should also advocate the removal of all of the above listed scientific theories from public classrooms. Science is indeed about discovery of facts. Yet science is also concerned with making inferences based upon discovered facts and observations. And when such inferences survive intense scrutinization, rigorous analysis, and repeated testing they can become theory. Theories change as new evidence is gathered and collated. No scientific theory, including evolution is proven beyond all doubt. This is not how science operates. If my opponent thinks that all scientific theories should not be taught in public schools then that is fodder for a different debate. If my opponent contends only Evolution should be singled out as not deserving its place alongside other science related curriculum, then I await the argument. In summation, I have clearly showed that Evolution is a scientific theory with a high degree of support within all scientific communities. Evolution is not some crank theory promoted by a handful of Biologists. Whether my opponent rejects part or all of Evolution is entirely irrelevant. Accepting that science should be taught in public schools, we can then conclude that Evolution should be taught in public schools.
Biological Theory of Evolution Should Be Taught in All Public Schools

Modern Theory of Evolution is a well founded explanation of both the history of and current diversity of life on earth. The theory is accepted by virtually all scientists in relevant fields such as biology and genetics, archaeology, paleontology, geology, etc. Unfortunately, the theory has been under constant attack from some religious people that feel that their faith based views of life must supersede science if the latter conflicts with the former. The scientific view is supported by copious amounts of empirical observations that form the firm evidential foundations that support evolution. Therefore, evolution needs to be taught in public schools along side other scientific theories. In stark contrast, Creationist type explanations are religious in nature. And religious explanations have nothing to do with science. Religion is and should be not ever be taught in public school. Therefore, creationism type explanations of life should not be taught in public school.
Racism is hypnosis

racism is racing, which our money system is entirely based on, does money not exist? some runners are faster than others, some bodybuilders are bigger and can lift more weight than others, some women are more beautiful than others, but thats a natural thing.. there are different nationalities, some people come from africa, africans namely, which is a race, but not an immoral race like niggers, which i have no clue where come from or dont know how to identify with
Anti-Semitism: Why the hate? - Opponent:Not Jewish

This isn't a debate anymore, stop asking questions that you could answer yourself. The Jews own a unproportionally large amount of businesses, and are unproportionally part of said businesses. They use this power to benefit their desires, and are only creating bigger monopolies on the economy, and information. For example, The Zucc. Some people may argue that Trump the election solely based on Russian bots and Facebook ads. Imagine what The Zucc is doing if the Russians got Trump into office using his platform. The Jews for all we know are in charge of everything already, and we don't even know it.
Anti-Semitism: Why the hate? - Opponent:Not Jewish

Okay, sure, fair point. However, that doesn't change the fact that Jews unproportionally control the wealth of the world, and unproportionally have a large role in business. They're taking jobs from the soon to be white minority, and keeping the money they make to themselves, instead of helping the poor. From the Medieval Ages to now, they've profited off the poor and helped no one but themselves. The "holocaust" was Hitler really keeping Jews from banking, and freeing the Germans from their oppression in Danzig and all over Europe. However, after the war, the Jews used their wealth and power to push their propaganda across the West, which is now increasingly destroying white self identity and Western culture.
Anti-Semitism: Why the hate? - Opponent:Not Jewish

Ok, interesting point. So this is how this will work, it won't be a debate, i will converse with you instead. But you can debate with those who (dis)agree with you in the comments. I will take an unbiased impartial stance because I'm a British Indian from West London n there are not many actual Jewish people in my area, so I don't understand their culture or the anti semitic culture. So Q1, apart from the whole Hitler aryan race complex, can you explain why Jews are hated so much?
Anti-Semitism: Why the hate? - Opponent:Not Jewish

Assuming that Hitler started gassing Jews since day 1, that makes for 3,153,600 minutes. 6,000,000 Jews killed during 3,153,600 minutes comes out to 1.9 Jews per minute. That means Hitler killed roughly 1 Jew every 30 seconds. (LOL) In Auschwitz, the most famous and biggest concentration camp, there are 15 crematoriums. According to Auschwitz survivors, Jews would go into the chamber, gassed for 15-20 minutes, then put into the oven. It takes 1 hour to cremate a body using modern furnaces which operate at much higher temperatures than the traditional ovens at the camp. However, lets say that the ovens were operating at a level that we see today, that means it would take 1 hour, 20 minutes to gas and burn 15 Jews assuming they were all burned simultaneously. (Disregarding the time it would take for the gas to empty the chamber for the bodies to be transported from the chamber to the oven.) The elevators used to transport bodies were very slow and could only take up 7 bodies at a time with their weight capacity. However, for our greatest ally, we're going to assume that bodies were teleported instantly from chamber to oven. That means 15 Jews were gassed and burned every 1.2 hours. That comes out to exactly 300 Jews every 24 hours (Assuming the gassing and burning of Jews was happening every hour straight for 6 years on an uninterrupted basis) the total number of jews killed would be 657,000 for those 6 years. The official Jewish story is that 4,000,000 Jews were killed at Auschwitz alone. How can any Jew, Israeli, or Shill ever even argue this story when just simple math is enough to destroy the whole argument? Can any Jews respond to this?
Glenn Beck is a Nut-Case

you I understand where your coming from. & I don't want to play "word semantics" but nutcase is defined as someone who may be dangerous, but ok ill take your word for it. Firstly its quite funny You brought up the " ADD" because I have it!, and both of my parents are recovered drug addicts and my dad suffers with depression severely due to crystal,. ADD is as not obvious mental disorder, it cant be easily picked up or recognised, So so far your suggesting he was mental because he suffered with it? Could you really cataract A.D.D as a severe mental disorder?. His family background may suggest the likeliness of him turning mental is quite substantial , yet there is no definitive proof that he has done something that is physically harming or any huge crimes. I think that maybe because of his family previous history and so fourth it may be more believable to suggest he may be a "Nutcase" but as yet no huge proof. ADD does not make him unstable or physically ill. Over to you.
Glenn Beck is a Nut-Case

I said nothing about him being dangerous and I also said there shall be no word-games so don't try to argue that saying he is a nut-case MUST imply that he is also dangerous. More arguments to present my point he is mentally unsound: . He has Attention Deficit Disorder, which in itself is obviously a mental disorder. . Both his mother and brother suffered from depression and committed suicide. Glenn himself considered suicide in the 90s. . Glenn is Mormon. .. need I go further into that?