BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The best animal to murder is sea lions.

Well, I think I won you over?? You have gone away from your beloved seals and on to sea horses! See, I told you. There is just too much choice for mortal man to ignore. Diversity is interesting in all areas of life, even this! We can be psychopathic and unempathic an kill, maim and generally abuse all sorts of creatures for fun, experimentation, boredom, ignorance or perhaps just quality entertainment for the kids. However, I don't know about you but I think the day humanity starts to unify in feeling bad about these things is the tragic day all this fun stops, the humans will have been tamed! We need this to be us! Damn, dirty apes!
The best animal to murder is sea lions.

I would indeed hate to miss out on many animals to harm like the ones you show, but I say sea lions are the premium animal. That kitten in the pavement won my heart and I could not help but think of tazering the kitten and later drowning it. The animals used for getting rid of landmines have me a dark, cheap laugh as well. I remember when i was little, i would stick many of my mothers needle in Ground Beetles and burning caterpillars with fire. They would give out a high pitched scream that i will always remember. All animals considered, there will be hundreds of amazing experience and animals to experiment with to be had but the bottom line is the quality of satisfaction from a sea lion is without a doubt my favorite. Population is not an issue, cuteness is not an issue, and easy killing and blood supply are there.
The best animal to murder is sea lions.

My opponent has a creative mind which I can see here that he puts to good use. Break dancing seals do indeed sound like proper entertainment and certainly put the sport back into trying to club them! However, to continue to show that there is far more to entertain us and that people are far to restricted if with only one species alone: http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... See that's just a smidge of the wonderfully diverse oppertunities we would miss out on if we stick to only seals. I think even my opponent , a stauch advocate of mono species murder must by now be feeling like he is missing out.
The best animal to murder is sea lions.

Well said. Giving smarter animals drugs so they inflict harm on themselves. The gets me hard, BUT I have to point out that Sea Lions are still cuter.. and on drugs could also maybe eat their babies that were born just seconds ago. This animals could go in a rage and rip the newborns through. Even if they don't, i'll do it myself. Using drugs on animals is a great idea, and there is something that has nice effects on sea lions. Sea lions develop a form of epilepsy similar to that in people, a new study done here- http://www.drugs.com... I'll let you read it. Could you imagine watching an epileptic convulsions, sea lion. Giving 30 or 40 of this animals the algae and watch him hurt themselves. After watching them convulse for a while, variously murder the seals in different ways. They will not be able to try to get away. Also, monkeys are not easy to capture if you don't have the right catchers. Sea lions are just waiting for you to get off your boat and cave in their skulls will clubs or a drill. Exploding melon full of blood was a great way to describe it. I would like to put one in a small case with needle inside but i digress. Also, when watching a video on those men clubbing the seals, you can see that they are terrified and the look up at you when you strike them with a huge fluorescent bulb. You might one to research another animals other than a primate.
The best animal to murder is sea lions.

Whilst my opponent does indeed start to make a convincing argument as I can see they would be great to shoot with a shotgun, quite dramatic,like a exploding melon full of blood or something, they really pale in to comparison when compared to other exciting things we can do to animals.Take this for example:The Junkie Monkey Experiment - (hums happy 60's theme tune)In this experiment, a large group of monkeys and rats were trained to inject themselves with an assortment of drugs, including morphine, alcohol, codeine, cocaine, and amphetamines. Once the animals were capable of self-injecting, they were left to their own devices with a large supply of each drug. The animals were so disturbed that some tried so hard to escape that they broke their arms in the process. The monkeys taking cocaine suffered convulsions and in some cases tore off their own fingers (possible as a consequence of hallucinations), one monkey taking amphetamines tore all of the fur from his arm and abdomen, and in the case of cocaine and morphine combined, death would occur within 2 weeks. The point of the experiment was simply to understand the effects of addiction and drug use.Now if monkeys tearing of their own fingers is not more entertaining then I don't know what is. But wait, perhaps there IS more to enjoy..How about:The Well of Despair and Harlow's Psychotic Monkeys??? Sounds tempting huh? huh?Dr. Harry Harlow was an unsympathetic person, using terms like the “rape rack” and “iron maiden” in his experiments. He is most well-known for the experiments he conducted on rhesus monkeys concerning social isolation. Dr. Harlow took infant rhesus monkeys who had already bonded with their mothers and placed them in a stainless steel vertical chamber device alone with no contact in order to sever those bonds. They were kept in the chambers for up to one year. Many of these monkeys came out of the chamber psychotic, and many did not recover. Dr. Harlow concluded that even a happy, normal childhood was no defense against depression, while science writer Deborah Blum called these, “common sense results.”Totally predictable and utterly pointless suffering, this man was a GREAT hunter I bet, I have idolised him as such anyhow.I know what you thinking, that wasn't cool at all, the monkeys aren't dead, well I think he did shoot them after so it counts ok?I think so far I have provided a snippet of other exciting areas of animal abuse that start to show that limiting oneself, to the admittedly satisfying species of Pinnipeds, is to deprive humanity of all sorts of exciting things.This section was for the psychologists, dmit it the results were interesting! No, well. Next we shall explore other species in other fascinating areas to convince you Pro is wrong!!Pro will likely try to seduce you with novel ways of blowing up seals or the like, remember, Seals cannot pull off their own fingers...
The best animal to murder is sea lions.

One of the best parts about my furry friend the sea lion, they are completely helpless, they are fat and full of nice red blood, and are very adorable. The ways of killing this little creature are but are not limited to, clubbing, skinning, shooting, beating, ripping, cutting, slicing, chopping, burning, freezing, plucking, stabbing, decapitating, throwing, shaking, slamming, squeezing, blinding, blinding, drowning, humiliating, and wearing. The key facts are cuteness, amount of blood available and how they look dead. Mute the audio, the guy is annoying.
Face to face communication is better than online communication

Here is why face-to-face communication is better: 1)it's more pleasant to communicate face-to-face because people get more energy and positive feelings communicating personally; that happens due to the eye contact and facial gestures. 2) some important aspects included in face-to-face communication can't be replicated by technology. For example, we don't have an opportunity to hug or shake hands of each other via the Internet. Also, in face-to-face meetings people have a better chance of formingpositive impression by using their body language and voice. 3) people get the responce immediately. They don't have to wait till their interlocutar will read their message and type the answer as it happens in online chatting.
The Soviet Union played the most decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2

"The main difficulty the US would face is the need for an amphibious invasion of a one front German occupied Europe. This is, however, possible provided the UK remained free." D-Day has proved that an amphibious invasion is a very difficult operation. The Allies used a total of about 160, 000 soldiers, losing over 12, 000 while destroying only 4,000-9,000 Germans. This is not a good ratio (for Allies), yet it exists even with most armored vehicles, weaponry and soldiers at the Eastern front. If a war was not being fought on the Eastern front, an amphibious invasion would be nearly impossible. If it was successful, such a small amount of troops and armor would make it through the battle that the remaining units would have virtually lost their military capability. Of course, after the landings, the Allies would still have to supply resources and soldiers to continue pushing the Germans back. http://en.wikipedia.org... "This means that 45%, almost half of Germany's losses, were inflicted by non-russian forces. Which raises the real possibility of a victory without the USSR." I have different information from a book I have called "The Russian Century" by Brian Moynahan. It states that Russians killed 7 times as many Germans as the Allies, along with another fact saying that 10 times more Germans surrendered to Allies as Russia. Nevertheless, if 45% of Germany's losses were inflicted by non-Russian forces, then that can also be accounted for the difference in amount of German machinery operating on the Western vs. Eastern front. German tanks, artillery and Luftwaffe played an enormous role in their success (temporary) and were the driving force of the blitzkrieg. By the time that Ally forces were on European soil, the Germans had only 26 divisions on the Western front (about 1 million troops) while having 214 divisions on the Eastern front. (The Allies outnumbered German forces on the Western front by 3.5 million). http://en.wikipedia.org... "The US strategy would have ended the war in 2 ways, both would mean a much longer WWII." Although this would definitely have affected Germany, defending requires a smaller amount of troops and equipment, and as a result, the Allies would have suffered devastating losses trying to penetrate the German war machine (which would be concentrated on the Western front). Also, although Japan did not play such a big role as Germany, do not forget it. Japan would also be a constant nuisance because (not needing to worry about fighting the USSR), Japan would be free to concentrate all of its war effort on eliminating the Allies.
The Soviet Union played the most decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2

LaughingRiddle, we meet again. I believe that the USSR was the deciding factor, because if Hitler would have chosen to not invade the USSR, then the Allies may not have had the USSR's support. This would have meant destruction for most, if not all, of the Allies. The turning point of the the war is considered to be the Battle of Moscow (which was already taking place during October of 1941, however the United States engaged in the war only in December). http://www.globalresearch.ca... Also, serious war trade began between the Soviet Union and USA in 1942. This is after the Soviets parried the German thrust at Moscow and began pushing the Germans back towards Berlin. http://2001-2009.state.gov... Although I do agree that without the support of the Allies, it would have been much more difficult and losses would be greater, but the German war machine was already running out of fuel by the time they reached Moscow. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
The Soviet Union played the most decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2

I do believe the USSR was the #1 contributor to the defeat of Nazi Germany. Especially in terms of soldiers and lives. However, I will argue CON based on the wording of the debate. The key word is Decisive; de·ci·sive diG2;sīsiv/ adjective 1. settling an issue; producing a definite result. If the USSR played the most decisive role then that would imply the USSR joining the war was what 'settled/decided' the outcome of WWII. However, the USSR joining the war did not mean German defeat was automatic; thus the USSR going to war was not the decisive event of WWII. In fact, through most of 1941 and even parts of 1942 the USSR seemed on the brink of collapse and defeat. Arguably, the USSR would have collapsed or lost the war without the extreme Allied logistical and material support to Russia. Russia received $11 billion in war materials: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks critical to logistical supply; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks); 11,400 aircraft and 1.75 million tons of food, and entire factories in order to produce more planes and tanks. The UK delivered to the USSR 7,000 aircraft, 5,000 tanks, 5,000 anti-tank guns, and 15 million boots in total, 4 million tonnes of war materials including food and medical supplies were delivered. http://en.wikipedia.org...Many of these things allowed the USSR to focus its manpower on producing weapons and filling military units. Russia is famous for spending men under equipped men in to battle against the Germans as it was, without allied support the situation would have been much much worse and increased production needs would mean more manpower strains. So while Russia may have contributed the most to defeating Nazi Germany, the decisive fact appears to be Allied Aid to Russia that was what meant Russia could eventually turn the tide and win the war. Without such aid Russia cannot have won the war the way it did, meaning Russia itself is not the decisive element.What decided the was in Russia' favor was really the battle of the Atlantic, that ended with an allied victory and allowed massive material aid to Russia for the duration of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org...Similarly, the UK is in the same boat. It is very possible had the battle of the atlantic been lost and the UK been effectively blockaded it too would have been defeated by Germany. As the traditional wisdom goes, in the big picture Germany really lost because it could not realistically compete with the industrial output of the Allies. The US was the largest industrial power in the world and a critical part of that decisive allied advantage. As was Germany's failure to control the seas and blockade the allies and nullify said industrial advantage. This is what decided the war in the the long run.
The Soviet Union played the most decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2

"They would also wage a very intensive and destrucive bombing campaign to cripple german Industry, and wipe out the German airforce." Although I agree that Ally air-force was simply bigger in numbers and, arguably, more efficient, the Germans had advanced anti-air and flak guns. A lot of these guns could also be used against tanks and could easily out-range the Ally tanks. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.militaryfactory.com... As a result of this technology, Allies would suffer heavy losses in air-raids on Germany. "While the amphibious invasion can concentrate its forces and fire power, the defenders will be spread out over a large area." Yet the Allies still lost significantly more men than the Germans. "If Germany defended france too much, the allies can take advantage by attacking a different place like Italy or the Balkans." Italy was also an ally of Germany, meaning there would be resistance if Italy were to be attacked (along with reinforcements from Romania). If the Allies were to break through that resistance, that would give the Nazis enough time to bring their own reinforcements to the region. "since Germany was much more willing to surrender and negotiate with the western allies." That is because they were pressured from the East by the USSR and would much rather be captured by Allies than Russians because of the way they would be treated. If the USSR would have not been pressuring them, the Germans would have no reason to negotiate or surrender. "Utimately, the US also killed more Germans than Germans killed americans. The same is not true for Germans vs Ussr." Don't forget that the US heavily outnumbered the Germans on the Western front, giving them a serious advantage. I would also like to point out that the topic of debate is: "The Soviet Union played the MOST decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2". most m!3;st determiner & pronoun 1. superlative of many, much. 2. greatest in amount or degree. "they've had the most success" The USSR had the greatest impact on the war. If any one of the other Allies was "absent", the remaining would not suffer such losses in comparison to if the USSR was absent.
You Surmise, I Decide, We Debate!

Again, it seems as though my opponent did not post anything. I will extend again, although I feel my opponent will not actually say anything. 1. A belief can be rooted in BOTH Faith and Experience -Pro 2. Action determines whether or not a person is good or bad. -Con 3. Debates ought to be more logic driven as opposed to evidence driven -Pro With this; I would also like to begin to ask for the vote. If the Pro does not refute this my request in the next round, then he agrees that Con should get all seven points for the round. If he does refute this, then the entire debate needs to be judged on the final round.
You Surmise, I Decide, We Debate!

How unfortunate. It would appear my opponent has timed out, and was unable to pick a topic, so I'll just extend and give him another oppurtunity to do so at a later date. 1. A belief can be rooted in BOTH Faith and Experience -Pro 2. Action determines whether or not a person is good or bad. -Con 3. Debates ought to be more logic driven as opposed to evidence driven -Pro
You Surmise, I Decide, We Debate!

This is an interesting concept. .. This debate is totally open. You present three resolutions, which you will argue "Pro" for, in your first speech, making sure to detail your position. I will then select one of your three resolutions. This selected resolution will be the one we debate through the rest of the debate. Of course, the resolutions must have two conflicting sides. .. but that goes (hopefully) without saying.
Trump is love. Trump is life

"I think trump is life. Agree? " Before starting my own arguments let's define a few terms. trump - a card of a suit any of whose cards will win over a card that is not of this suit "called also trump card. [1] Life - the ability to grow, change, etc. , that separates plants and animals from things like water or rocks [2] Now there are 7 qualifications in order for something to have life. They are as follows: It should maintain some balanced conditions in its inner structure Its structure is highly organized. It should be able to break down or build up nutrients to release or store energy based on need. This is called Metabolism It should grow, which means its structure changes as time goes by in an advantageous manner. It should show adaptation to the environment. It should be able to respond to environmental stimuli on demand (as opposed to adaptation, which occurs over time). It should be able to reproduce itself. [3] Now as far as I can tell a "trump" or "trump card" doesn't meet any of these requirements making my opponents statement "trump is life" false. [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] . https://en.wikibooks.org...
An enforced majority government

The US government did got all of that stuff done in 18 months alone. They did more. There is even a new amendment in the constitution that is wanting to be made, and it has a lot of support(https://www.cnn.com...) I don't aggree with it, I think it infringes on religious freedom but it is still something leftist that is getting done.Foreign governments may get more done, but if the things they are getting done ideologically oppress a big group of the population without comprimises, then is getting things done a good thing if it's oppressful?
An enforced majority government

"On the contrary to your suggestion, the more extreme parties would be eliminated earliest as, while they are some people's first choice, they are also inevitably other people's last." That isisn't always true. John Kacish would rather have Hilliary as President then Steve Bannon, even though Kacish and Bannon are on the right and Hilliary is on the left. "More would get done as you said, but since this method selects a party that the majority are, at the very least, contented, no particular group is neglected." A progressie party is not connected with replublicans. More would get done but according to Replublicans, the things that are done won't be good things.What your supporting is utilitarianism: The belief that what the government should do is make the majority of the population happy, even if a minority is unhappy. If this is your ideology, would 99% of the population enslaving the unlucky 1% be justified? According to Utilitarianism, it would be okay if a majority of people care more about themselves then a stranger (most humans are like this). However, the United States is a replublic, which (should) aim to protect the rights of oppressed humans.Things already get done in the White House. Donald trump and congress has done the following. Even if you disaggree or believe Obama did it, it still are the things that the white house has gotten done:-Lower taxes-Lowest unemployment rate in history, -stricter border security- the almost complete destruction of ISIS-Repaired relations with Russia, and so on.
An enforced majority government

On the contrary to your suggestion, the more extreme parties would be eliminated earliest as, while they are some people's first choice, they are also inevitably other people's last. Somebody who voted republican, for example, would most likely want any other party before democrats. I believe that this would see the rise of progressive, reactionary governments who would benefit most people, being part way between the extremes. More would get done as you said, but since this method selects a party that the majority are, at the very least, contented, no particular group is neglected.
An enforced majority government

This is tyranny of the mjority and will lead to sepratist movements from the minor parties. This is essentially Communism/Facism; one party rule. If the Far left Democrats(or the Far right Replublicans) have one party rule, this will infringe on the rights of the oppressed parties. Things would get done, but by extreme measures that most people wouldn't support.If the Democrats were given one party rule, the tax rate would be at 75%, abortion would be legal under all situations, misgendering someone would be a crime. If the Far right was in charge, then Atheism would be illegal, there would be combination of Curch and state(to an extent), abortion would be illegal, there would be an equitible tax and more. Although I like many of the Far right bullet points, most people in the country wouldn't.