BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We should not use animals in war

Human life is more important than animal life. We are far more intelligent, and sophisticated than the average animal. Humans contribute greatly to society, and yet, we are still conscripted during wartime. Therefore, I cannot see your point about this choice argument, seeing as many humans don't have that choice. Animals save human lives. They are clearly needed in war, so soldiers don't die as much . Animals are needed in war, the same as humans. If they don't go to war, humans die.
We should not use animals in war

My next argument is simplistic: Soldiers have a choice about going off to fight but the animals do not. A soldier signs up because they want to fight for their country but do you see animals being given that choice? No! We pick the animals that go off to war. If we give humans the choice whether to risk their lives for their country, why shouldn't the animals choose? Instead we pick them up and pack them off to die for us. Is this fair for them? Animal lives are just as important as human ones!
We should not use animals in war

My opening argument is simple. If our country is at war with another country, and we need to use these animals. We must use them. Humans and the animals I assume you refer to (dogs, horses, what not). It is a sad truth we must face. If we can send human lives off to war, we should be able to send an animal life off to fight. While the senseless death of anyone is terrible, but if an animal can help a soldier in the line of duty, and to make sure that soldier can live, then we should use animals.
We should not use animals in war

Animals should not be used in wars as it is not their fault that the country they live in is at war with another country, so why should they risk their lives in the war? Millions of animals are killed or injured in the line of "duty" and for no reason other than we view humans as more important than the animals and they are there for us to use in any way we choose, even if that results in their deaths and that their senses are better than ours.
Oil production is causing environmental issues which requires a change

The US is already doing those things, and is the only nation doing those things, and it is extremely cost ineffective. You did a fine job of showing costs of oil. Now look at the cost of erecting a wind turbine and maintaining it, along the the multitudes of endgangered and threatened birds that get killed by the fans, and you can see why progress toward using renewable sources of energy is slow. The exessive costs of contruction and maintainance of those things is prohibitive. China and Russia are enemies of the USA who plan on a world where the USA has no power to stop them from taking all of the worlds oil for themselves to use in developement of their soicieties and war machines. The insane spending of the USA as it goes impossibly deeper into debt wtih China will lead to the collapse of the US Dollar and the US economy and our enemies are chomping at the bit as they wait to unleash their horses on the world when the US becomes unalble to hinder them. While the USA throws money to the windmills and burns huge piles of money being the only nation to make any attempt to curb problems of fossil fuel use, China and Russia ignore all calls to self-control as they seek nothing but world dominance and laugh at the USA for being so dumb allowing them to build their wealth and militiaries with no regard for the environment. War is coming and the USA will proababy be in no position to fight back when our electic grid is knocked out and everything falls into chaos. Only Jesus Christ can make the cnanges to stop mankind from destroying each other and the world. What you are saying in calling for more and more controls on the oil industry and more and more development of renuable energy use which you can easily document as being many times more costly than oil (and don't forget the oil and coal powered industry that is needed to built the windmills and tattereries and piping for geothermal) I am not against using thiese things, but realistically, the push to throw more and more money to the wind and bury more and more money in geothermal is only going to sink the US economy further while our enemies, including the muslims, wait for the moment to attack us when they can do enough damage to prevent our military from stopping them from taking over our land and binging and end to America. Only Jesus Christ can make the changes needed because if all the nations of the world are not stopped from their progression toward wars which will destroy 90 percent of the worlds population and animals, pressuring the oil industry to go out of bisiness in America will do absolutely no good. China will be more than happy to gobble up whatever oil they can get their hands on, and let the huge clouds of emissions drift over america. The changes you are calling for are not realistic.
Oil production is causing environmental issues which requires a change

Rather then hope for a shift from China and Russia, I would enjoy seeing America take a stand and step out on a limb to try and find a way to make energy come from electricity supported by renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and water. Geothermal, by itself, has an estimated potential to support at least 10% of today's electrical needs. (1) This is, of course, using technology we have today which I hope to see always improving. The U.S. per day uses about 18.89 million barrels. (2) Approximating 117,538,000 households, we can assume each house uses 4.8 million barrels of oil a month. Latest current price, of 9/22/2014, each barrel costs $91.46 making it about $439.01/month for each house.(3) Energy, on the other hand, measured in kilowatt hours (kWh), is much lower in price/household average. Each household uses 903 kWh/month and average U.S. price is $.106/kWh making it a monthly cost of $96.62.(4)(5) 1. http://energy.gov... 2. http://www.eia.gov... 3. http://www.eia.gov... 4. http://www.eia.gov... 5. http://www.eia.gov...
Oil production is causing environmental issues which requires a change

Since China and Russia will not abide by any rules for change in order to protect the environment from damage resulting from the use of oil, and if the USA were wiped off the map today, oill damages would probably get worse since the USA leads in safety and environmental protection. The only change that wiill succeed is when Jesus Christ Himself returns and subdues the nations who are turned agaisnt God. Sadly, the USA in its leadership has become one of those nations. The Muslims, The Communits, The Hinduistic nations, the Pagan nations......God will tear down all ungodly governments. Untill then, crying about the damages of the oil industry won't do you any good. Thank God that the USA cares enough to try to put safety measures and environmental protections in place, but if you think China, Russia, and the Arab nations care anything about it you are nuts. They are laughing at the USA and expecting the USA to fall from power completely soon....and when that happens, environmental damages from the oil industry will be the least of your concerns.
Oil production is causing environmental issues which requires a change

Oil Production is highly subject to accidents and mistakes as shown in north Dakota's boom which documented more then 1,000 accidents in 2011. (1) Exposed oil causes tragedies in even the people that use it. Humans can be effected in, but not limited to, Rashes, chronic headaches, lung disease, organ damage, and nervous system damage. (2) I conclude that oil drilling and the support of all products maintained by oil are causing massive destruction towards the Earth and we, as the human race, must start a dramatic shift towards renewable resources to power our living standards. 1. http://rainforestfoundation.org... 2. http://www.propublica.org...
Do Hong Kong children need more time to play

I will be arguing that the status quo is the best way to maintain the education level of Hong Kong. My opening thesis is: Hong Kong is 6th place in the world for education. They should maintain this place by keeping the status quo the same. Also, children have lives outside of school. They can use those to play. Now I will start my rebuttal: “they need to do about 7 pieces of homework on average per day” This is a good thing. If they did 2 or three they wouldn’t be as educated. “Parent's expectations of their child is very high, so children will have pressure about the expectations from their parents and their stress from the homework. ” Parents should always expect the best from their children, if you don’t it doesn’t make them want to be better. “The best way to get rid of stress is play. ” They still play, just at home. School is for education, not for play. “Play is a social activity. ” It may be, but school is not.
Do Hong Kong children need more time to play

I think that the children in Hong Kong schools should have more time to play because they need to do about 7 pieces of homework on average per day. Mostly are from Chinese, English, Mathematics and General studies. It is also quite useless although you gave a lot of homework because some children from Hong Kong schools receive about 10 pieces of homework and still got a rank of C. If the homework won't improve test scores, what's the point of distributing and doing a lot of homework? The second issue I want to talk about is stress. Parent's expectations of their child is very high, so children will have pressure about the expectations from their parents and their stress from the homework. The best way to get rid of stress is play. Play can help you to forget your stress. Once I was really stress about the homework, but after 20-30 minutes of play, (Not playing video games) my stress went away so I can concentrate with my work. Another good thing about play is that you can learn. Play is a social activity. You can go and explore and create new things so you can learn something. You can also know new friends too. Conclusion: In conclusion, I think children in Hong Kong schools should have more time to play. Most info. from SCMP
Donald Trump Would be an Amazing President

This round, I will be focused mainly on refuting arguments my opponent has brought up in his above statement. My opponent has stated that Trump is not the only candidate that will provide our country with the security it needs from foreign threats. It's true that almost all of the candidates place a huge stress on national security, but I would argue that Trump would implement the most effective strategies for protecting us. My opponent mentions Ted Cruz as an example - yet as Cruz stated himself during the recent Republican debate, the only difference between his policy and Trump's (regarding the influx of Muslims, at least) would be that Cruz has already set a specific amount of time that he would prevent Muslims from entering our country. Therefore, Ted Cruz is a poor example if you wish to show that other GOP candidates have policies that deal with these problems in a better way. My opponent has also stated that Trump "seeks out minorities and foreigners as targets for his claim that the U.S. is returning to an ethnically mixed melting pot..." Trump is not 'seeking out' minorities - he is simply bring forward issues that happen to deal with these minorities, such as ISIS terrorists and illegal immigration from Mexico. Trump has never stated that he wishes the US to not be ethnically diverse. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." My opponent specifically mentioned the first part, regarding religion. Broken down, this simply means that Congress must have the state separated from religion, and anyone can practice any religion they want. Trump's proposition is not affecting either of these - he is simply going to allow us to monitor the actions of Muslims in order to prevent any more terrorists attacks like those at San Bernardino. This is hardly much different from what the government is doing with the NSA, monitoring any citizen they feel like. My opponent also asks, "to whom is Trump an amazing president?" To that, I reply the 34.4% of Republican voters who said they would vote for him in the polls. Finally, my opponent asks how Trump's criticism of foreign powers will help to conduct foreign matters well or to better our economy. Maybe it won't - but it is the duty of the American president to denounce things they see in the world that is perceived as wrong. We are one of the most influential countries in the world - which is why we had better start acting like it. Thank you for your time. http://www.realclearpolitics.com...
Donald Trump Would be an Amazing President

I'll approach this in two ways. I will first refute my opponents arguments and then present my own. I intend to do this using simple language and I will not, like many others on this site, over complicate my argument with unnecessary adjectives and adverbs. That is not directed at my opponent today, it is simply a passing point. Firstly, my opponent believes Trump is the only presidential candidate to give a robust policy for security measures, I disagree. Not a single presidential candidate has assumed that security threats are not an issue, and instead of proposing a policy in which an entire ethnic and religious group is banned, republican candidates have offered simple solutions. The debate between Ted Cruz and increased surveillance demonstrates an individual who recognises the balance between State power and individual liberties. Trump's policies return the U.S. to a state of constant fear and turmoil due to the scaremongering of his policies. He has continued to seek out minorities and foreigners as targets for his claim that the U.S. is returning to a ethnically mixed melting pot of religious belief and cultural diversity. A principle the U.S. is founded on, yet Trump is re-writing history to slot in his narrowed ideology of 'us vs. them'. It also must be asked how can Trump be 'an amazing president' when he violates the First Amendment of his constitution? For Liberals, Trump encapsulates their cynical idea of a Republican. Loud, obnoxious and consistently bigoted and narrowed minded. For Republicans though, Trump is offering policies that as Pro said would 'ensure our safety', meaning secure our liberties and freedom with the knowledge of our safety. Yet, to ensure our safety, Trump has decided to undermine the basic liberties of the country he so loves. The First Amendment forbids any law that qualifies a person's rights through religious tests. Trump's ban on Muslims is completely unconstitutional and decries the Tyranny of the majorities that the Founding Fathers sought to remedy. I simply must ask, to whom is Trump an amazing president? He is going against the Republican values of limited government and upholding the constitution and for Democrats he is is blunt and anti-thesis to social democratic and progressive movements. I also fail to see how Trump, who has, throughout his campaign, denounced China and criticized its growth will be to the betterment of our economy'. He has burned bridges with British parliament, Chinese government, Mexican workers, Muslim workers and so on. The climate of a pseudo-isolationist policy is present in Trump's economic policy. A policy roundly slammed on both sides when it was proposed by Ron Paul in the previous presidential elections. The best scenario is that Trump does not, if elected, live up to any his promises as they offer no practical or long term benefit.
Donald Trump Would be an Amazing President

I would like to state that the kind of president we need now is one who can bring us security, especially from ISIS. Donald Trump can bring us safety through policies he will implement, such as his plan to temporarily keep as Muslims out of the country. This is not a racist measure, it is simply to insure the safety of Americans from terrorists. He will also deport many of our illegal immigrants, namely from Mexico. This will open up more jobs for legal immigrants and citizens. He will also take measures to insure that betterment of our economy, such as reforming the trade relationship with China. Because of all these measures, Donald Trump will be one of the greatest president's the US has ever seen.
Donald Trump Would be an Amazing President

I would first like to state that I in no way agree that Donald Trump would be a good president - I am simply arguing this side because I wish to argue with someone in full possession of their mental capacities. (no offense, Trump fans) I will be arguing the side of Pro (Donald Trump would be a great president). Anyone can accept this debate R1-Acceptance R2-Opening Arguments R3-Rebuttals R4-Closing Arguments Rules No new arguments may be posed in the final round Preferably, no forfeits, but I understand that sometimes life happens and something pops up. If you choose to use sources, please paste them all at the very bottom of your argument. Sources are not required. I look forward to a good debate!
Lonzo Ball was/is a NBA draft bust.

Thank you for responding. Now let's be fair, no one is LeBron James. He will go down as one of the best three players in history of the NBA. LeBron is once in a generation type player. So bring LeBron rookie stat's is irrelevant in this type of debate. Plus you comparing wrong positions. Lonzo play point guard as for LeBron he could play all 5 positions. You stated that Lonzo is a bust. In your title of your debate and your argument. And i say he not by showing you and the reader a comparison to a other Hall-of-Famer, who also play point guard the same as Lonzo. I Will go further in my argument now. On why Lonzo isn't a bust.You brought up Donovan Mitchell, who having the better year. And yes he is and some other rookies are having a better year than Lonzo too. But in this year rookie class. This could be one of the best classes ever. Comparable to the 1996 class. One other thing, the stat's you mentioned Mitchell was only higher in scoring. The other three stat's line Lonzo has the better stat's.Plus if you look at the end result Lonzo rank 8th among his rookies class. Ranking 8th out of at least 90. Is that Pretty good? (5) https://m.ranker.com...Plus look who was pick ahead of Lonzo.Markelle Fultz at number one. And he didn't even play that much this season because of injury. You could called that a bust. You then went on, to say you though Lonzo was good. But is that the whole point of this debate is trying to prove Lonzo was a bust. If he good, then he not a bust at all.I will finish up my argument in my last round.
Lonzo Ball was/is a NBA draft bust.

LeBron James 20.9 points, 5.5 rebounds, and 5.9 assists per game. He became the first Cavalier to receive the honor and just the third player in NBA history to average at least 20 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists per game as a rookie. Their was also a lot of better rookies in the 2018 draft that have a lot of better stats then Lonzo Ball Donavan Mitchell is averaging 20 points, 3.7 assists 1.5 steals, and 0.3 blocks. I am not saying he is bad, I am just saying he shouldn't have been picked second overall
Lonzo Ball was/is a NBA draft bust.

So, you calling Lonzo Ball a bust in his first year at age 20. Seem very early to me to called any one a bust at Age 20 in there first year. Let's compare some stat's. The first person i will bring up is Jason Kidd. ( By the way Jason Kidd is a Hall-of-Famer) He didn't have a good shot either when he first came into the league. He shot .38% from the field. Lonzo shot .36% from the field. Kidd also shot at .27% the 3 point line. Lonzo shot .30% from the 3 point line. Let's compare the rest of the stat's. Jason Kidd. Rebounds 5.4, Assists 7.7, steals 1.9, blocks 0.3, points per game 11.7 minutes, 33.8 and turnovers per game 3.2. Lonzo Ball. Rebounds 6.9, Assists 7.2, steals 1.7, blocks 0.8, points per game 10.2, minutes 34.2 and turnovers per game 2.6. They seem very comparable don't you think? Oh yeah and jason kidd was one year older than Lonzo. Kidd was 21 and Lonzo is 20 years old in there rookies years. Lonzo played only 63% of the season in his rookie season. If he would had play mire the points and shooting percentage could had been higher. He was finally starting to shot the ball better during the second half of the season. "Lonzo Ball becomes youngest ever to get triple-double"(3) he has 2 triple-doubles this year and he has 13 double-doubles. "Of all of the players who play 25+ mpg, here are the #1 guys at each position, by Defensive RPM: PG: Lonzo Ball SG: Andre Roberson SF: Robert Covington PF: Anthony Davis C: Rudy Gobert"(4) Ball only in his rookie season, shows he has incredible potential. In the years to come. It not just scoring that has an impact on the games it also defense. Defense is a lot harder to learn than shooting the ball for a good percentage. I'm looking forward to your respond. .. Sources 1. . https://www.basketball-reference.com... 2. . https://www.basketball-reference.com... 3. . http://www.espn.com... 4. . https://clutchpoints.com...;
Rationality is Good

Right, thank you for your argument, and 'good' was introspect as a relative field. So, right, the rational option is to break it up, BUT not force the other to apologise, but telling them that conflict causes injury. So here's a question for you; You must decide what is rational here, so, you're in a parliment, and then the all vote for a war with a neighbouring superpower, and all your and their allies would be obliged to join, and you predict from troop numbers and statistics that such a war would cause mllions of deaths, now, the moral decision would be to let it through, because to protect what is right and democracy, but the rational option is to prevent the war using your veto power, which would make you hated, but you ultimately saved the world from a catastrophic world war. Which do you choose?
Rationality is Good

Well actually rationality and morality don't contradict. In a way, rationality comes from morality. Your debate is titled "Rationality is Good" but "good" doesn't exist without the concept of morality. I will not use a source but just a small example. 2 young children are playing and one of them gets rough and hits the other. You must RATIONALLY decide what is morally acceptable. Either allow the kid to hit back or have the other apologize and confess that they are MORALLY wrong for that. Allowing retaliation for the victim would cause a lasting physical conflict, which isn't rational because conflict is MORALLY wrong.
Rationality is Good

I believe that rationality is good because......a) Why should we let society be destroyed by simple human nature? Shouldn't we let the empirical judgements of rationality rule over us? While it might mean seeing things we don't like, the effects, no matter how emotionally scarring the content is, and any interpretation is this is fair game because it doesn't matter how it was intended, the empirical content of the speech, what matters is the receiving of said speech.b) Morality is just an excuse to oppose something, even though there is no logical reason to do so, due to the fact that morality has been used to justify wars, prevent progress, and commit genocide; And that morality has also caused many bad things to happen, and not just a justification for said things to be committed.[Sidenote] This is a philosphical argument, so bringing up sources makes you look ignorant and narrow-minded, just saying [\Sidenote]