BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The current zoo system should be abolished.

Cruelty If there is one thing I can't stand, it has to be cruelty in general. Cruelty is unacceptable towards humans and animals. When I see commercials about animal cruelty, I always tell myself who has such a cruel heart that they could do that to an animal? Some zoos have been caught about cruelty but as I stated before. Just because a zoo has animal welfare problems does not mean all zoos should be shut down. Space This week I went to Busch Garden. I kept in mind this argument, but what I saw was completely contrary to your arguments. Busch Garden (and Animal Kingdom in Disney) teach the visitors all about the animals. I learned so much that it's unbelievable. I even saw a hyena for the first time! I studied the people around me and saw how they were all excited about seeing a specific animal (Yet, there were a few that were annoyed and just wanted the rollercoasters). If we abolish zoo systems, a lot of these attractions must close down even if they do have enough space (like a savannah). However, you must understand that an area is limited in zoo. Animals are well fed and healthy, so why abolish this system? Natural Habitat Pinning down exact numbers is nearly impossible, but most experts agree that we are losing upwards of 80,000 acres of tropical rainforest daily, and significantly degrading another 80,000 acres every day on top of that. Along with this loss and degradation, we are losing some 135 plant, animal and insect species every day—or some 50,000 species a year—as the forests fall. (1) An animal's habitat is being destroyed. Zoos help keep animal population up. So, they try their best to imitate the animals original habitat. But, you must understand they can't plant like 5 billion trees in an area. Zoo's space is limited. (for the a billion time). Endangered Species If we abolish the current zoo system, many animals will become extinct like the Californian condor, black-footed ferret, Arabian oryx, European bison, Mauritius kestrel, echo parakeet and various Partula snails (2). Overall, zoos are used not for entertainment purposes, but for educating us about animals. Did you know the 2 toed-sloth are expert swimmers and are green in the rainforest because algae grows in their hair? I learned that yesterday. As you can see, zoos have a huge educational value and I really want to learn more about animals in the future and I bet a whole bunch of people out there do too. So, we need to keep our zoos. Thank you. Sources: 1 http://replantingtherainforests.org... 2 http://en.allexperts.com...
The current zoo system should be abolished.

Not all zoos can be sizes of savannas so they must rationalize the amount of space given to each animal. So you must understand if a leopard can't get 12-30 sq. miles of space. But, zoos do have to divide that space rationally. God also told us in Genesis 1:26-28 that we have dominion over animal and that we can take it upon ourselves for food, and several other things like education, etc. Those veterinarians help those animals in the zoo get better. "Zoos, as we will see below, exist to protect endangered species and to help us understand and protect our animal cousins more successfully. One of the reasons animals are taken into captivity in zoos is because they are under threat if they stay in their natural habitat. There have in the past been many bad zoos and cruel zookeepers. It is imperative that these are reformed and weeded out. Good zoos in which animals are well fed and well looked after in spacious surroundings are becoming the norm and should be encouraged. Zoos can exist without cruelty to animals, however, and so the fact that there are animal welfare problems with some zoos does not meant that all zoos should be shut down. Zoos nowadays are not marketed as places of entertainment - they are places of education. Most modern zoos have their main emphasis on conservation and education - the reason that so many schools take children to zoos is to teach them about nature, the environment, endangered species, and conservation. Far from encouraging bad treatment of animals, zoos provide a direct experience of other species that will increase ecological awareness One of the main functions of zoos is to breed endangered animals in captivity. If natural or human factors have made a species' own habitat a threatening environment then human intervention can preserve that species where it would certainly go extinct if there were no intervention. There are certainly problems with trying to conserve endangered species in this way but it is right that we should at least try to conserve them. And as long as animals are treated well in zoos there is no reason why conservation, education, and cruelty-free entertainment should not all be combined in a zoo." (1) Sources: 1: http://www.idebate.org...
The current zoo system should be abolished.

Experience I was in 5th grade when I first when to the zoo. The experience was really eye-opening. I knew what an elephant looked like and what monkeys looked like, but to see it for real. That's a whole different experience. Now, I've gone to the zoos several times each time I had a wonderful experience and learned a whole bunch of information. If we abolish the current zoo system, how are kids supposed to know about animals? You might say the Internet or books and magazines. Well, like I said before it's a different experience when you see an animal up close. Each zoo is different. Some zoos as you stated above are inconsiderate for the animals. Yet, there are still some that provide everything for the animal which will be my second point. For the Animals. .. Zoos provide food and water for all animals twice a day, not including treats given. Good zoos provide necessary medicines. This helps the animal to be as healthy as possible. (2) Good zoos have veterinarians who can help injured or sick animals, which would die in the wild. (2) When it's hot, zoos try whatever possible to make the animals comfortable(1). Some zoos overcome animals becoming overweight by hiding food or placing it in containers, where the animal has to expend energy to obtain it. (2). As you can see, the zoo is doing everything in support of the animal. Captivity vs. Wild "Generallly speaking, animals live longer in captivity than in the wild, because keepers and veterinarians are available to look after their health and diet. If an animal sickens, there are people available to help it and, if the animal dies, post-mortems can be used to help other members of the animal's group. "(2) Animals are safer in the zoo because there are no predators to hunt them. Keeping their population numbers high. Endangered Animals Endangered animals are kept in zoos to help them survive and even raise their numbers through mating. Sources: 1 . http://www.youtube.com... (video) 2 . http://en.allexperts.com...
slavery bein illegal

And what if they want out of this agreement? Can they just freely leave as they please? if that is what you suggest then they are not truly slaves but simply workers working for food and shelter rather than the money too buy these things with. And therefore your not providing proof that slavery should be legal. Slaves don't have the option to leave or stop working. They are owned. And if that is the case with those individuals in your suggested world hunger fixing program it is still immoral for every human has the right to live their own life free of being owned by another.
slavery bein illegal

"either way if the homeless and hungry do sign up, which most of them wont so there is no problem, the ones that do will either be old, in bad health, and wont last much longer." Then what would be the point of your grand plan? If so few signed up it wouldn't make much of a difference either way. And your whole reason for allowing slavery is the fact that fixing world hunger would cancel out the immorality associated with literally owning another humans life , but if your plan doesn't really make a difference then you literally have no reason to even allow slavery to be legal. "so either way my argument in correct and you loose this argument." Because you have given no good reason that slavery should have been legal you have not won this argument. The burden of proof was on you and you provided absolutely no real proof that slavery should be legalized. There for you sir lose this argument.
slavery bein illegal

which is why that slaves will only be used for agricultural purposes. which would reduce the use of mechinary so it would be more "green" for the atmosphere. it would only be agricultural because any other use of slaves would not be considered slaves, they would be "indentured servants" and would be against the laws that would be associated with slavery and its regulations. yes i know that the industry business would decrease but thats why slavery should only be allowed in 1/15's of the state.
slavery bein illegal

Owning another human being, having that type of power over another person, will almost always corrupt the owners. These slaves will be treated poorly regardless of any laws or regulations placed on this plan of yours. Your plan would also be incredibly detrimental to the world economy. Construction crews, planters, carpenters, basically all manual labor positions will be replaced with these new slaves. Making the unemployment rate skyrocket. Forcing even more people to "sign themselves up" to become slaves just so they don't end up starving to death. Your solution would be a catastrophic disaster and in no way justifies slavery becoming legal.
slavery bein illegal

thats not what im saying. if they choose to be a slave they file to become a slave. after that they are not free. they are put on a slave market and bought. it is not their choice to leave when they please but their choice between being a slave or starving. Once they are bought they are paid with food and shelter and care but no money which is considered slavery. If they run away at all they can be caught and punished but not killed.
The Jets are poised to make a super bowl run.

thats exactly what im saying. the jets o-line is terrible. if we can fill in some of the gaps there which is basically right tackle right guard and left guard then it will be much better. a better line will lead to a much better run game. there will be holes for jones and washington to run through. a better running game will lead to a better passing game making the offense more diverse. it will undoubtedly help clemmens if he has a good running game. on the defensive side they have trouble stopping the run so we need to get a true nose guard to replace robertson. he's a defensive tackle not a nose guard. then the they could use a few improvements in the linebackers. the way i see it all comes down to improving the o-line. if thats done i think the jets could make it at least back to the playoffs.
The Jets are poised to make a super bowl run.

im sorry to inform u, but the offinsive line has 5 people on it, not 2. mangold and fergason are both very solid, not stars but even at that the remaing memebers of the offensive lines are dreadful. we were starting a 7th rounder in bender and he was leaving out quaterback out to dry all season long, as were the rest of the linemen. our offensive line is awful, and ofensive linemen make players great. look at adrian peterson, the one on the viking, the team with the amazing offenisve line. he was able to put up a rookie season people will not soon forget because he had wholes to run behind. tom brady? 3 of his 5 linemen are pro bowlers, and look at what he has done. lead quaterbacks in yards, touchdowns, and quaterback rating, if he had the jets o line, not a chance heed lead teh leauge in any of those catogories. not only cant our line protect our quaterback, it cant open wholes for a running back. we have a young developing quaterback, and when theres no running game, and no protection, he is not developing or leading out team. vilma is an outsanding player, and an even better leader. he is the heart and soul of our defence, and we already benched the heart and soul of teh offence in pennington. vilma looked like he was going to consistantly lead the leauge in tackels, then we took his game away. so they took away a lineman and pressure on the quarterback, which was nonexistint this past season, to make our star player not able to shine? doesnt make scence to me. the jets need help and with the current players we dont have a chance in the stacked AFC with the three best teams in the NFL to even make teh playoffs, let aone make a superbowl run
The Jets are poised to make a super bowl run.

well the way i see it we can do a few things to right the sad situation that is the new york jets. first if mangini plans to keep the 3-4, they should trade vilma for either a draft pick or a linebacker who is suited to the 3-4 since vilma is clearly not. but most of all i think it comes down to the offensive line. as far as im concerned mangold is really the only solid lineman we have. ferguson needs to put on some weight but still i dont think hes living up to the expectations of the number 4 pick. once the line situation is corrected the running game will undoubtedly improve since thomas jones showed in chicago that he has what it takes to be a great running back and leon coming in as a backup adds a little more to the running game. a good running game will result in a much better team
The Jets are poised to make a super bowl run.

kellen clemmens showed promise, as a desent quaterback but nothing special. look at the super bowl chaps and who the quater backs are, manning, brady, ect. celmmens is not that good and sadly enough as a jet fan he never will be, esepcialy if he needs to be scramibling around runnig away from defensive ends teh whole year. o line wins games, it openeds up the run game that seems nonexistant for the jets tomas jones and leon have proven they are nothing special and the o line does not help. drafting rookies at o line might help but they are 1 unpredictable and 2 need time to develop. the jets also had one of the worse defences in the leauge. villma is as good as gone, they apply little to no pressure on teh quatuerback in there 3-4 although revis harris and rhodes are young and tellented, they can not lead a defence. we were neer last in the league in every major offensive and defensive catagory, and did not show to much potentail this past season
The Jets are poised to make a super bowl run.

It is my belief that it is only a matter of time before the Jets reach the Super Bowl. I like the combo of Thomas Jones and Leon Washington in the backfield and I think Kellen Clemmens shows some promise as a quarterback. The defense is decent. I think we could use a true nose guard to replace Dwayne Robertson if we're going to continue with the 3-4. Shaun Ellis still gets the job done at end and we've got a few good young players in Darelle Revis, David Harris, and Kerry Rhodes. The one spot where i think we need help is the o-line. But that can be solved with some good drafting.
Gay marriage

"Why not? A MARRIAGE DOES NOT AFFECT ANYBODY IN THE SOCIETY. NOT YOU OR ME. Or anybody else in fact." Oh really? Marriages cost money: Claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse’s health insurance policy. The estimated cost for legalising gay marriage between 2010 and 2019 is 898 million dollars (not counting Social Security, inheritance, ect...) I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to pay taxes for something I do not believe in. Plus, allowing gay marriage could evolve into allowing many other untraditional marriages such as polygamous, incestuous, and even bestial. To sum this arguement up: Gay marriage is pointless and expensive.
Gay marriage

Marriage was invented for heterosexual people. You wouldn't put your shoes on your hands and put your gloves on your feet, would you? I understand that being gay is something a person is born with, but that doesn't mean they can reintroduce customs that have been running for thousands of years just to suit their needs. Love is love, marriage isn't necessary. Marriage is the joining of love between two people of the opposite sex, you can't reinvent a definition of a word. You wouldn't take a religion and change five things about it to fit your daily needs, would you?
Gay marriage

You don't need to have kids just because you've gotten married. And to get married doesn't require anyone to do "a good of society". Marriage is a bond of love, to prove your love to your spouse. Not to the society. " The right wing conservatives think it's a decision And you can be cured with some treatment and religion Man-made rewiring of a predisposition Playing God, aw nah here we go America the brave still fears what we don't know And God loves all his children, is somehow forgotten But we paraphrase a book written thirty-five-hundred years ago" To be gay is not a choice and people won't/can't just decide that they like the same sex. It's just how it is. And when two people are in love, they should have the right to be married. No matter what 'society' says.
Gay marriage

1. Gay marriage accomplishes nothing: Control over children can be given in the adoption process, the participants won't be deemed in any way different in society if married. 2. Gay marriage has no point: Marriage isn't just an expression of love and love can be shared in many other ways. The purpose of marriage itself is to produce and raise children to adulthood, whereas same-sex partners being parents will significantly alter the child's life: Children without their mothers won't have the emotional security and unique advice without their mother. Girls without their father are more prone to indulge themselves in sexual activity at a younger age, and boys without their father are unable to receive advice that a father may provide in matters such as their "road to manhood." 3. Gay marriage could be harmful to the rest of society: More gay marriage = More of society becoming openly and proudly gay, which could thus accelerate the assimilation of gays into mainstream culture. Gay marriage could very well drastically change western civilization. 4. Gay marriage usefulness: From a legal standpoint, marriage is a civil right that prohibits any participants that are NOT a heterosexual couple. From a personal standpoint, I believe marriage is a privilege and should not be used by anyone who can't use the privilege PRODUCTIVELY for the good of society. Marriage is a tool used to procreate, for religion, and for love ; gays cannot procreate, being gay itself violates most religions, and love can be expressed in other ways.
Winnie the Pooh Movie is a better children's movie than Up

To close my statements, I would like to add a final few notes. To begin, to say Winnie the Pooh is a better movie would imply it to trump Up in all categories, so I'll finally have to play the time card. Between then and now, there has been leaps and bounds in technology, allowing for a better visual experience to be made. And if I remember correctly, Up was jaw dropping gorgeous. Now, to the second point: children know of pain and sadness before seeing movies. To say that the viewing or implied viewing of a few specks of blood and death in a children's movie as something new isn't a sturdy argument, as many other of the most popular Disney movies that are more often seen as kid's movies have them. The Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and in the implied sense, Toy Story 2 ((All those things about Andy not playing with Woody? That's a toy's death)) Children know of conflict, so to show a movie with a lack of a relatable conflict will seem un-natural and corny. It will be generally unrelatable and unrealistic in the eyes of a child. It will be a pipe dream. They can understand conflict, they can understand good versus evil.
Winnie the Pooh Movie is a better children's movie than Up

I understand you perfectly on the knowledge part, but I still don't come to see why a movie can't just be enjoyed. Yes, children definitely need to learn, but that doesn't mean that they don't need to relax from time to time. Also, they could tone it down in the movie Up now which shows some blood when he hits him with a cane and gives the viewer an idea that heads will be taken off when his childhood hero is threatening him. Almost all Disney movies have never even let their characters say the word blood except for sleeping beauty where she pricks her finger. I mean many have learned some things through shows and movies, but when you're little you don't really get that deep understanding. When the dog told that joke about the squirrel dying, that made violence an okay thing which shouldn't be. Popularity is also a factor when the alpha is turned to him (also when he's being bullied). Winnie the Pooh also shows bonds between people that aren't blood related in a soft cuddly way that is pleasing to kids. They would do anything for each other which also shows that friendship is connected with loyalty and commitment. In an odd way it also addresses substance abuse with Pooh's honey jar. This movie also has its own depth that is just more light-hearted. There is no bullying or violence talk.
Winnie the Pooh Movie is a better children's movie than Up

Allow me to quote you '...but kids aren't responsible for that on their shoulders when they should be enjoying a life without jobs, taxes, and such as long as they can' Escaping responsibility is not averting it. One must learn of the world through both light and dark. A movie is made not just for entertainment, but for a meaning. Up is a story of unlikely companions surviving through unlikely scenario that is difficult for both of them to conquer. Russell's attachment to Kevin, even when his friend may be in true peril's way, shows of extended family, of bonds not just made in blood. That carried more meaning with me than everything I saw of Winnie the Pooh in my own childhood. Knowledge is power. There are frightening things in the world, some of which a child can not face alone. However, movies can help them come to terms with that. To know of evil, and how to confront it. To know of the mundane and the exotic, and what it brings. Life is not without its conflict. That conflict is what life is all about: knowing it, and conquering it
Winnie the Pooh Movie is a better children's movie than Up

Yes, as you have said that things were revolving around light and happy tales, but isn't that what childhood should be? I know, when I was little, I always wanted to know situations that people older than me were facing, but I think that I was protected from that for my best interest. Being a child should be spent being a child and watching wacky, unbelievable fairy tales that could never happen in real life. At this time, things are making children less innocent and more saddened by things and scenes that a movie such as Up has. And what about future Disney movies? What will be in store for the kids now? I understand 911 was a big deal and should be remembered, but kids aren't responsible for that on their shoulders when they should be enjoying a life without jobs, taxes, and such as long as they can.
Winnie the Pooh Movie is a better children's movie than Up

I accept your arguement on the terms that times have in fact changed, but now how you believe. The world post 911 has shown that the world isn't a place in which we the able to believe a tale in which things are light and all happy. A story in which believable characters are thrust into scenarios where they must overcome real-life flaws and sadness is more culturally relevent than before. Up was made with children in mind, but also to display the continuing line of Pixar movies that contain signifigant deeper meaning than that of an older movie. They cover fear of lonliness, need to explore, and pursuing the dreams you've only considered dreams. More than what's been pursued in the past. Up is a better Children's movie by merit of deeper meaning and cultural relevence