BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Seal Clubbing does more harm than good

Definitions- Seal Cubbing: see these pictures: http://www.nederhoed.com... http://1.bp.blogspot.com... 1. Cruelty to animals According to recent studies done by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), the hakapik, when used properly, kills the animal quickly and painlessly. However, the aforementioned CVMA report also urges "continued attention to this hunt" due to nine types of "violations and abuses." The Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry in Canada, also known as the Malouf Commission, claims that properly performed clubbing is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses, and according to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), these studies "have consistently proven that the club or hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely." Another study, conducted by the IFAW, an anti-sealing group, disputes these findings, however, detailing "42% of cases where there was not enough evidence of cranial injury to guarantee unconsciousness at the time of skinning, and 79% of cases where sealers did not check to ensure that the seals were dead prior to skinning them." A study of the 2001 Canadian seal hunt conducted by five independent veterinarians, commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), concluded that, although the hakapik is a humane means of hunting, many hunters were not using it properly. This improper use, they said, was leading to "considerable and unacceptable suffering," and in 17 percent of the cases they observed, there were no detectable lesions of the skull whatsoever. In numerous other cases, the seals had to be struck multiple times before they were considered "unconscious." These findings are at odds with the CVMA report which states that Daoust, at the same time and in the same location, recorded that 86 percent of skulls had been completely crushed by strikes with hakapiks. It states further that two years previously, Bollinger and Campbell had recorded that 98.2 percent of the skulls examined were completely crushed. 2. Kills young pups despite Canada's ban on the commercial hunting of suckling pups. The HSUS explains this by saying that images of the legally hunted "ragged jackets" are nearly indistinguishable from those of whitecoats. Also, they state that according to official DFO kill reports, 97% percent of the estimated million harp seals killed in the last four years have been under three months old, and the majority of these are less than one month old. Sources: http://www.ctv.ca... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.canadiangeographic.ca...
The Christian god is Fair

My opponent is arguing that the Christian God is not fair. "Resolved: The Christian god exists." Here my opponent has contradicted himself. Since he is negating this resolution, he must affirm that God does not exist. If God does not exist than he cannot be unfair. "The Christian god is not fair" "The Christian god is not a fair god." These statements presuppose that the Christian God does indeed exist, for God cannot be unfair if he does not exist. Either my opponent affirms that the Christian God does not exist which consequently debunks his own assertion that God is unfair. Or he contradicts his resolution and believes that the Christian God exists and is unfair. If the Christian God exists you cannot call him unfair because that is a contradiction. IF the Christian God exists than he MUST BE JUST because that is a necessary tenet of the Christian God. Lastly, your scripture reference is inadequate because you used a translation that is a paraphrase. Do not use NLT.
The Christian god is Fair

Resolved: The Christian god exists. The Christian god is not fair as described in the following bible passage: http://bibleresources.bible.com... Deuteronomy 32:4: 4 He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect. Everything he does is just and fair. He is a faithful God who does no wrong; how just and upright he is! The Christian god is selective of whom he directly communicates with, which is just one example of unfairness. If he were fair, he'd speak directly to everyone, but elevating the status of some and not others is completely unfair. The Christian god is attributed to talents and endowments that each person receives. If some are born into privilege and wealth while others are not, it hardly makes him fair. If some are born with amazing voices, acting ability or athletic prowess while others are not, it also makes him very unfair. The Christian god is not a fair god.
The Christian god is Fair

"The Christian god exists" Then you contradict your resolution. "and he is unfair. " If he exists, then he is the metric by which we judge fair. That is a necessary quality of the Christian God. Simply calling something unfair does not make it so. "I didn't resolve to the Bible being truthful. " Yet you are using it to argue your premises? "Then the burden of proof lies with you. " If the god of whom you speak is not just or fair, than he is not the Christian God. In order for god to qualify as the Christian God, fairness and justness are a necessary quality. "Your point about my choice of Bible is completely invalid. " It is not a literal translation. It should read: . http://bibleresources.bible.com... 1. A god who is unfair cannot be the Christian God, that is a contradiction. 2. If the Bible is not true you cannot use it to justify your premises. 3. You contradict your resolve in argument #1.
The Christian god is Fair

<< Since he is negating this resolution, he must affirm that God does not exist. If God does not exist than he cannot be unfair.>> That is your own assertion; I didn't resolve to the Bible being truthful. The Christian god exists (in this debate) and he is unfair. There is no contradiction in my argument whatsoever. < > It isn't. << IF the Christian God exists than he MUST BE JUST because that is a necessary tenet of the Christian God.>> Then the burden of proof lies with you. I disagree. As there are contradictions in the Bible itself, he CANNOT BE JUST. The Christian god is punishing everyone for original sin when Adam and Eve committed the crime. How is that fair? We should all be in Eden, if he were fair. Your point about my choice of Bible is completely invalid. We aren't even debating in the language that the Bible was originally printed in, so you don't get to make that call.
Legalizing prostitution in the United States

I sincerely apologize for the round that I wasted by forfeit, due to finals and holiday obligations I had little time to write an adequate rebuttal. I commend my opponent for a well executed debate, and am sorry if he feels that he has wasted his time due to my conspicuous forfeit. mechanically I believe that I have lost this debate, for my opponent rebutted my arguments while I failed to extend and argue his, and I commend my opponent for doing so. However, I believe that I win this debate on a logical stance, and this is why. 1. my opponent and I agree that there are psychological, emotional, and physical problems, that are fundamental to the business of prostitution, and he has endorsed this fact several times throughout the debate. Please see r1 again if you need any clarification on the specificity of the detriment----\> 2. Anyone in their right mind can see that legalization will result in a exponential increase in prostitution, for it effectively creates an avenue for those seeking prostitution, that would not be there if it we're not for the legalization. Instead of the rare chance of people actually being attracted to a prostitute in a bar or a street corner, a heavily advertised location is established where people who are looking for prostitution can go, which will increase prostitution overall, incredibly. (see status quo in Nevada)-----|> 3. because there is an exponential increase in prostitution there is an exponential exacerbation of the problems been mentioned throughout this round. So when my opponent asserts that women will be helped by legalization, he completely neglects the hundreds, perhaps THOUSANDS of new women that will be brought into the business when legalization occurs. in order to avoid a governmental endorsement of this detriment, you should look to the Neg. Thanks.
Gerrymandering Should Be Eliminated

1. Gerrymandering allows officials to more effectively represent the interests of their constituency. My opponent admits that if in the case of packing were true, then they would represent their citizens better, but this is also true in cracking too, because the goal is to still win that seat safely meaning still a vast majority would still favor one party. However, if someone such as a non-partisan committee makes the lines then it could cause near 50% to be upset with their representative, and non-partisan committee are not always as non-partisan as they sound. 2. Gerrymandering will allow the legislature to be more accurate of how the citizens feel. It is true gerrymandering will give one party an advantage, but that in the political district not state wide. Bipartisan committees are equally divided between the parties and they generally make "sweetheart deals" when they draw districts favoring the incumbent, this would be bipartisan packing. Now dealing with the 2012 election. I would argue this is a problem with the representative allocation more because each state must get at least one representative. Such as if you take Ohio's population in 2013 of 11,570,808 [1] and divided it by the 16 districts it is about 750,000 per district; however, in Montana which as one district then each district has about a million [2] in that district. This cannot be fixed with or without gerrymandering. On the poll, that has absolutely no relevance to if we should have or not have gerrymandering in fact, this is a logical fallacy called appeal to popularity [3]. In California in 2012 the Democrats won 61% of the vote, but got about 72% of the house seats. So much for that "independent" commission, or there is a different problem here, which is districts are divided by population not registered voters, which could produce these kind of distorted results with or without gerrymandering. If you want to make the percentage of votes won equal to the percentage of seats you would have to eliminate a pure local representative legislature and introduce statewide elections for representatives. Sources[1] . http://quickfacts.census.gov...[2] . http://quickfacts.census.gov...[3] . http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
Gerrymandering Should Be Eliminated

That"s fine; I look forward to your responses! As it happens, there was an article on gerrymandering in yesterday's newspaper, which is extremely coincidental in showing the modern relevance and controversy concerned with gerrymandering. In 2012, Republicans (in control of the Alabama state legislature) redrew district lines to pack 14,806 blacks and 36 whites into a voting district which already had a 72% black voting population, bringing the percentage of black voters to 75%. This action had the result of both allowing the black voters to elect their favored candidate, but also made the surrounding districts more white and 'Republican-friendly.' A map of the district lines are now on their way to the Supreme Court with requests by both Democrats and African Americans that the black voting population be diluted. In fact, this is only the first of such cases to be elevated to the Supreme Court; the ruling could affect similar disputes in Texas, Florida, Virginia, and many other Southern states where Republicans control the legislatures. Why is this interesting? Because it shows that not only does gerrymandering allow for the dominant political party to waste the votes of opposition and artificially increase their political representation and power, but that parties can also use a system of racial quotas in doing so. Turning the Voting Rights Act against blacks in this way simply adds to the reasons that gerrymandering should be eliminated.
Gerrymandering Should Be Eliminated

Gerrymandering: to divide (an area) into political units to give special advantages to one group [1].1. Gerrymandering allows officials to more effectively represent the interests of their constituency. If a political district is drawn to overwhelmingly favor party 1 then and overwhelming people in that district will be happy with their representative. However, in districts that are close then depending on the voting method at least a big section to upwards of over 50% of the people in that district would be unhappy with their representative. Concluding, gerrymandering will make more citizens sastfied with their representative.2. Gerrymandering will allow the legislature to be more accurate of how the citizens feel. Assuming districts are drawn with equal population in each district then if 7/10 districts favor party 1 while the other 3/10 favor party 2 it is reasonable to assume as a whole the state favors party 1 around 70% while it only favors party 2 30%. This is because districts are usually drawn by bi-partisan committees which likes to give each of their parties safe seats and prevents from disproportionate gerrymandering. Concluding, gerrymandering will most accurately allow people to select their representative and maintain a close proportion to how the citizens overall feel. Sources[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Nationalism

A good case by the Pro. I'v e found throughout history, two forces tend to balance out in a nation. Patriotism, and Nationalism, and of the two, Nationalism is the more violent. Nationalism inspires people and draws them together to a common goal, as does patriotism. But Nationalism does this by an us first mentality. It is the mindset of the people that their Nation is in fact superior to other's. It is in a sense a transformation of loving one's own country, to resenting other nations. The reason Nationalism works is because it can draw people together by the belief we are the greatest. It's an infectious mindset. A destructive mindset. Many wars in the course of history were fought, solely based upon the Nationalism in one country. The first World War, The Second World War, Serbo-Croatian conflict, Yugoslav War, and many others. Patriotism ion the other hand is the peaceful love of the country. It promotes mutual cooperation on the international scale, and encourages peaceful relations rather than war. Conclusion: Nationalism ideally should be peaceful, but if that is the case, it would cease to be Nationalsim, and turn into patriotism.
Nationalism

Good points, and I feel nothing bad, in fact I am grateful that you responded, rather than forfeiting. To say racism is gone is stupid, and there are still plenty of people who carry racist ideologies. And you're right; Hitler used the Jews as a scapegoat, as a blame for all the problems in Germany. Why they believed him without question I cannot understand. But to the point:Although in WW2 Germany this was the case, scapegoats aren't entirely related to Nationalism. For example, blaming the problems on the minority groups in America is not to promote nationalism, but to make it seem like the government hasn't done anything wrong, when in reality it is the one to blame. For the people, blaming the minorities is out of sheer blindness. Like I said, nationalism in an ideal case is the love of one's country, and the mindset of being proud to be from that country. You love it's culture, and you love it's history: it doesn't mean you agree with everything the country does. In an ideal case, nationalism does not include racism and the persecution of minorities. Rather, it promotes unity of the people, under a unified cause. I'm not saying that everyone needs to be nationalistic: in no way should the government force nationalism on an individual. I'm simply saying that in an ideal case, one will find increased productivity, harmony, and low tension between the classes. In an authoritarian state, and a hardcore nationalistic one, the ones who can't speak out are indeed persecuted. Conclusion: In the ideal case, nationalism doesn't promote racial superiority, but love of your country.
Nationalism

I've been really busy this week, so I apologize for this shorter argument. Nationalism has it's benefit's i'll give you that, but, like just about anything, it's bound to have it's drawbacks, and in nationalism's case, i feel the cons far outweigh the pro. Nationalism tends to flare up in times of crisis, be it war or economic, and it tends to target a minority population. In Hitler's Germany for example, all of that nationalism was put against the Jewish minority for no reason. They were a group that he could target in order to fuel unity. Nationalism by nature fuels conflict. It is the idea that one's nation is superior or better, and tends to aggravate tensions. Also, as you mentioned above, Nationalism sparked the first world war powder keg of Europe. Why? Because people where drawn into the idea of supremacy of others. It's an infectious mindset. In the united states, especially now, racism is still very prevalent. Why you may ask. Because the economy has been in decline for a while and people want a reason. The easiest is to target the minority for our problems. It's a natural reaction. Conclusion. Nationalism sparks conflict and disharmony by unfairly targeting those who are not strong enough to speak out.
Nationalism

Introduction: I am willing to debate with anyone who has good knowledge of left-right politics, some knowledge of nationalism, patriotism, and history of the nationalist movement. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BASE ARGUMENT: Nationalism is a widely debated and hot topic. There have been many proponents, and opponents of Nationalism. Personally, I think that a nationalist majority in a nation is healthy. I believe the benefits that Nationalism has to offer outweigh the disadvantages that many people say include "xenophobia", "racism", "intolerance", and "imperialism". Note, I am not supporting a fascist regime, but merely citing the large benefits that Nationalism has to offer.
Aerogant is very rude

Telling people what they are based on their actions is not to be rude; it's to be truthful. My lack of courtesy for people today is because I spent half of my years of learning figuring out that people are hypocritical animals that pretend to be more than that; they try to look good by wearing nice suits, a monocle, being stylish, being sexy, assuming that somehow what they wear has any affiliation to what they are. Everything is not what it appears on the outside - people choose what they want others to see on the outside. Let me tell you right now, people aren't just going to let everyone know their issues and their insecurities right off the bat, so you have to look beyond their current appearances and stop telling yourself "I trust them", "I'll give them a benefit of a doubt", because these are excuses made by someone who cannot accept that are poorly analytic to begin with! I save idiots from dangerous people a lot. So many people are so blind and oblivious to the dangers of this society, that I have to use my analysis and wit to make sure they do not get hurt. Sometimes it's difficult, because you spent years sometimes saying you probably made a mistake this time, but years later, you see on the news that you were right about someone and they were charged for sexual assault. People do not see what I see, not because I'm psychic or special, but because I know how the human brain works on a level higher than anyone; I watch people draw profiles on serial killers and somehow these people managed to describe a serial killer as if they were the serial killer! No, it's because humans are not "complicated", they have reactions - I have managed to figure out every reaction a human makes throughout extensive studying and analyzing. If there's anyone you want to come to for advice on if someone is being honest or dishonest, it would be me. The way I break down people is a talent in its own right. I am so far deep inside the human brain, that I can break down authority and pride in seconds because I know what causes people to think their age or position is more important than others, or why people are patriotic or prideful. I "know" why - others do not! I am not the bad guy just because I make people feel bad about themselves. No, this is based on their own irresponsible behavior - the shame they feel when I scold them for their foolishness is the result of life and consequence.
Aerogant is very rude

I am aggressively rude, because I am honest. You are passive-aggressively rude, because you are dishonest and a coward. I see right through naive children whom built their ethos on angst and exaggeration over analysis and evidence. You do not fool me - your entire response is solely to condescend me, which is being rude in a passive-aggressive way. "far too over your head", you don't even know what I am capable of and the amount of megatons of knowledge I have over your angst. This is why I am rude and honest about being so - people like you are know it all's, yet you attack people that supposedly "know nothing", while at the same time anyone that is remotely intelligent can see that you treat me differently from actual stupid people, to say that I am not stupid as you think; that's the illusion you are too ignorant to understand!
Aerogant is very rude

Right, so, first of all, being truthful and rude are not polar opposites, so therefore you can be both. I don't care if you're telling the truth or not, there's no need to be rude. "My lack of courtesy for people today is because I spent half of my years of learning figuring out that people are hypocritical animals that pretend to be more than that..." So you're a cynic. Congratulations. I really couldn't care less. Don't come onto a debating site like a little child and release all of your insecurities into it like a river of filth. "Everything is not what it appears on the outside - people choose what they want others to see on the outside." Right, so you choose to appear as an imbecile and a fool on the outside, great. Oh, yeah, and what an incredible principle. "If you are honest, but aren't rude, people will elude the truth." Wow, thanks Lincoln, I suddenly feel a wave of intelligence and serenity washing over me. So you're saying that if you're truthful yourself without being rude, no one will be truthful in return. Um, okay then. It's just sad. You come onto a debating site, enter into debates that are far too over your head, and what, come out with a 4.44% win ratio. Wow, you must feel like you've come far in this lifetime. Brilliant work, pal. I'm glad that there are people like you out there, because it ultimately just shows me how fortunate I am.
Aerogant is very rude

I live by a principle: "If you are honest, but aren't rude, people will elude the truth." When you understand what happens when you tell people their true nature - not being rude is the last thing you want to do! By telling them something they do not want to hear, you're turning them into a half-human; half-animal. Being nice and smiling is never going to save you when you just woke the beast.