BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mars should be colonized, not the moon.

Round 2 is the rebuttal round so I will go ahead and debunk FreedomBeforeEquality's arguments. Proximity While the distance between Earth and Mars is one problem, this problem is less of a problem with new rockets in development. A new rocket engine in development known as VASIMIR uses plasma instead of a traditional chemical rocket. A plasma rocket could possibly cut the trip from Earth to Mars from 6 months to 39 days. While it is still less than the trip to the Moon, Mars is more mineral rich and contains more resources which I will get more into later. The first astronauts on Mars are going to learn to deal with this problem.Tidally LockedThe tidal locking also results in very long day and night cycles. It would be hard for astronauts to get used to this but on Mars, the day and night cycle is similair to Earth. GravityYou have miscalculated, there is not a 20% difference between the gravity of the two celestial bodies. You are judging by the percentages compared to Earth. The moon's gravity is 50% of the gravity on Mars. Something weighing 30 pounds on Mars would weigh only 15 on the moon. While lower gravity is great for building and jumping, it's not practical. Astronauts do in fact notice health issues in space even with exercise. Less exercise would be needed on the Mars to stay healthy as opposed to the moon. Also, since they are not visiting the planets but establishing a permanent colony, they will have to deal with the gravity for quite some time. If they do return back to Earth, it will be harder to adjust after becoming used to 1/6th Earth's gravity as opposed to 1/3rd. ResourcesIt is cheaper and more efficient to get resources directly from the "planet." On the Moon, we would have to send rockets back and forth to get the resources found on Earth. We can find valuable resources directly on Mars easily because it's richer than the Moon in useful materials. There would be no need to spend millions of dollars on rockets going back and forth because the martian colonists can get them theirselves.Habitability While terraforming may sound crazy at first, keep in mind we are not looking to do it in a very short time. Terraforming Mars would be a pretty long process, it may take a couple centuries before you can walk outside without any special gear. However, terraforming may as well be worth it in the long run. We would have not one, but two planets where the human race (and other life) live. Putting domes everywhere would limit accessability. People would be trapped in small domes as opposed to having free land to walk anywhere. The Moon is incapable of being terraformed, Mars has more potential for Earth life. Additional Sources1. https://www.nasa.gov...I already posted most of my sources to back up my arguments within the second round.
Mars should be colonized, not the moon.

Many space agencies in the future are looking to expand Humans outside of Earth. The two most reasonable places to set up colonies first are the Moon and Mars. In this debate, I will be arguing that Mars should be colonized first. FreedomBeforeEquality will be arguing the Moon should be colonized. Rules:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRounds 3-5: Anything else
Zoos are Harmful

My first argument has gone unchallenged. I will be writing two of my points for round 3. I wish to address these points today: 1)Zoos Protect Animals From the Dangers of the Wild 2)Animals Live Longer in the Zoo than in the Wild There are many dangers in the wild, Especially if you are not on top of the food chain. From predators to prey, There are more dangers in the wild than you think. That"s where zoos come in. Zoos protect animals from the dangers of the wild, From extreme weather conditions to predators trying to hunt them down, If the animal is in a zoo, They are very unlikely to die. As studies from BBC Wildlife has shown, About 80 percent of animals live longer in the zoo than in the wild. The study shows that animals are more likely to thrive in the zoo than in their wild counterparts. We shouldn"t describe animals being in the zoo as "being in captivity", Because that"s not what zoos are. Animals not only live longer in zoos, They develop better and are more likely to flourish. If my arguments go unchallenged again, I will thank you now for participating in this debate.
Zoos are Harmful

Thank you to KMS2003 for being my opponent in this debate. I greatly appreciate it. If you have any inquiries please ask me. In my opening statement I said I would have 3 main arguments. Just in case you have forgotten they are: 1)Zoos help breed animals 2)Zoos protect animals from the dangers of the wild 3)Animals live longer in zoos First off, Do you know how many endangered species like the pandas die each year? If it wasn"t for zoos, I bet most of them would have died out already. We need zoos to be able to perform acts like this to help animals. If we banned zoos completely, Endangered animals would die out completely. Is that what you really want?
Zoos are Harmful

First off yes zoos might be helping those animals but they also have them domesticated and constantly gawked at it - is not our job to play god if an animal dies it dies its the circle of life - they would not have to "save" these animals if humans weren't destroying their homes and killing them off - zoos are a dangerous place let the record show that many people have been injured or killed because of accidents in zoos - when you go to the zoo you pay, Correct? So basically these poor little animals who are supposedly being saved are actually being used for profit.
Zoos are Harmful

Lots of people these days think zoos are harmful. The thing that they don"t realise is how much zoos have helped animals over the years. From breeding animals to protecting them from the dangers of the world, I don"t know how much zoos have contributed to the animal society in the past decade. I have three arguments. 1)Zoos Help Breed Animals 2)Zoos Protect Animals from the Dangers of the World 3)Animals Live Longer in the Zoo than in the Wild
Zoos are Harmful

this was supposed to be an argument but you are just stating the same things just worded differently. I understand that in the wild they are in danger but we as humans everyday live in fear for our lives; anything could happen but do you see us taken care of in sanctuaries. It is apart of life. How will they learn to hunt and to be an actual animal if they are cooped up in one specific area prohibited to go anywhere else and constantly stared at. I'm sure they live a lot longer in zoos but for the sake of religion "god " is the one who decides whether they live or die not us and if you happen to have different beliefs then think about it this way, Why are we wasting money and space for animals who don't benefit us? They just waste time and opportunities. They don't get to go out and see the world they get to be stuck in one room gazing at the same scenery until they parish now what kind of life is that eh? A wild animal is an animal is, Well, Wild. This means that it isn't tame and it lives on its own without any help from people. Who are we to take them out of their homes and domesticate them and put them on display like some sort of trophy we won. Zoos are just completely wrong in general i hope i gave you an entertaining or rather satisfying argument i'm not that passionate about this because there are bigger problems in this world however it is something that needs to stop
The United States needs to increase funding to its nuclear program

Now as the commenter has brought up we could go down the rabbit hole and address nuclear energy as well. Seeing as that would make for a harder to follow debate I say we stick to just nuclear weapons. The reason I bring nuclear energy up is it serves as a nice analogy in this sense: the alternatives are better. Nuclear energy is not as clean as solar or wind or as efficient as traditional sources. Just like nuclear energy, nuclear weapons are not as useful as traditional forces and not as tactical as cyber concerns. On the cyber front the fact North Korea can even be believed to have attacked us shows that virtually anything is a cyber threat. China and Russia aren't stupid, their not going to attack us with nukes but they can and have done cyber attacks on us. It is better if we focus on the attacks that can and will happen. It is also better that we focus on the more traditional military capacities. Now the chances of nuclear war or any nuclear conflict occurring I feel are close to zero. Iran is being dealt with, North Korea is largely managed by China and neither China or Russia are stupid enough to attack us seeing the negative ramifications. The Kenen telegram is still in effect to this day I would say in that Russia is not stupid. Now the chances that we will go to traditional war with at least one of the nuclear states is close to one in my estimation and though not as deadly as nuclear war it is still deadly. Yes, you should worry about Ebola but you should get a flu vaccine. Not to mention improving traditional warfare works to mitigate the negative effects of any potential nuclear war as well. Having a strong navy and air force can help shoot down or at least track the missiles before they are able to reach us. Every cost is an opportunity cost and I feel it is better to invest in other capacities. It also provides a for any loss in prestige that you think are bad nuclear state is in. Having a traditionally powerful army makes us just as large a threat to any ordinary nation as it does to Russia or China. Perhaps even more because the concept that we will use regular forces is believable. But, perhaps you will argue that we should just fund every part of the military. Fine then how? Every cost is an opportunity cost so who are we going to raise taxes on or what programs will we cut to make this possible and why wouldn't that money still be better spent focusing just on traditional or cyber concerns? Let's not forget that the largest reason for having a nuclear stock is to serve as a deterrent. Using basic game theory all we need is one function nuke capable of hitting them to show cooperation is preferred to war (infinite turn prisoners delima loss of one round is all we need). Even if the stock is not up to the highest quality we only need to have them and a few functioning ones.
The United States needs to increase funding to its nuclear program

Is it in a pitiful state yes. But I however view this as a proud testament to the fact that we never actually needed to use it. You also make it sound as if our arsenal isn't powerful anymore. Seeing as all of north Korea's missiles have been duds only 7 states are known to have working nuclear missiles. Of them only Russia's stock is the only one that comes even remotely close to ours and if you think are nukes are pitiful you should see the Russians. Contention 1: The united states nuclear arsenal is not ineffective. Though the nuclear arsenal is dated I propose that spending more money on it will have a counter effect to what you want. You seem to think that if we don't other nations will bully us but in reality if we do the chances of them doing it go up. See if we start to revamp are nuclear program and modernize it this gives the other nations an excuse to do so as well. Our nukes were always the best nukes so any nation that would gain from a revamp would be the nations you think will bully us. If we do this it will be viewed as a grab for power and thus lose us prestige. As to the employee question I think it is primarily anecdotes and the most of them are in general good loyal soldiers. The conditions may be bad but in reality military life is never a good life. Are there inefficient drug users there, probably, but they are throughout the entire military. These programs are not that much more ineffective then most of the rest of the military. In general to your contention ineffective is a relative term. We still could destroy all potential threats with our nuclear stock in its current condition. Not to mention it is still better the the rest of the world. You fear loss of prestige but committing an action that could potential spark world war three would make us less safe in the long run. Question 1. Does it break any treaties? America has signed a lot of treaties in our time pertaining to proliferation (SALTs STARTs ect). If I am not mistaken increasing funding to these programs would break at least one of these various treaties we have signed. If I am correct as a nation of honor we should not break our treaties. Contention 2: If it needed to be done it already would have been. I don't know about you but I am a joe blow with no experience in the militarily. If it really was as bad and as terrible as you seem to make it out to be bills already would have been signed. We however are not privy to all the information that the military is. It may look bad but if it really was bad something already would have been done. If we feared MAD would no longer be on the books with Russia we would update them very quickly.
The United States needs to increase funding to its nuclear program

The simple fact of the matter is that the united states is pitifully unprepared for nuclear aggression. Our once formidable arsenal now stands but a rotting hulk of what it once was. Experts have described our launch facilities as: "A badly maintained cold war museum", and our facilities are aging and dated. the time is now to refund our missile program, and make the United states an mighty nuclear superpower once again. Contention 1: The United States nuclear arsenal is aging and ineffective Subpoint a: The nuclear arsenal is dated The entire amount of software needed to launch our nuclear missiles is stored on an 8" floppy disk from the 1960s, our missiles have sat still since the 70s, and the building that holds our entire supply of enriched uranium, suffered a collapse due to old age. The blast doors on our silos are too rusted to completely shut. whether you like it or not, our nuclear arsenal is in great need of updating, and that can only happen if funding is allocated to modernize our most powerful weapons. If funding is not provided, the US will lose global diplomatic power, and will be open to intimidation from other, increasingly well armed countries like China, Russia and Iran. subpoint b: The employees are ineffective A missileer sits for hours on end in an underground bunker, with no bathroom, waiting for an attack that may never come. There have been drug convictions and dismissals for cheating on tests, and the fact of the matter is, that the men and women who work to protect our nation from some of the greatest threats in the world, are forced to endure ineffectual and almost prison like conditions. The bunkers that defend our nation need to renovated, and the employees retrained and overhauled. This issue is a matter of national security. I f we do no take action soon, the United states may find themselves in a dangerous place, where they can no longer hold their own against those with more powerful arsenals. -FJK
Roblox is better than Minecraft

Roblox gets its fan-base because it is free. It may be hard to hear, but I tried it myself because it was free. Children who don't have credit cards or don't have money can install Roblox for free, even without Admin privileges as it installs as a plugin through your browser, while young adults can buy Minecraft for themselves or for their children. Therefore, naturally, you will get some parents who disagree with the child getting the game, thus meaning the child is deprived of their want to play Minecraft. The child then reverts to a free alternative, therefore there are much more younger players on Roblox than in Minecraft, as well as a lot more players of Roblox.You don't need evidence for that. It is common sense. Everyone has had a childhood. For some of the voters, they wouldn't have been allowed to buy games with their parents' money, while other voters may have been spoiled. You could sell the creations you make in Roblox, but who is going to buy them? We have already established that a large majority of the players are children because it is free. Meaning that if people want to play it because it is a free alternative, why would they spend money on creations they could attempt themselves? At least Mojang makes this illegal for users so that the maps become a public domain. I can also conclusively say that a lot of those members are just the same person creating alternate accounts because they have forgotten their password and haven't played it in a long time. Like myself, a lot of players, sign up and try it once and never go back. People who forget their password and can't be bothered to go through the process of going back to their email to reset their password will create new accounts. The number of registered users is not enough evidence of the amount of people that have registered. Minecraft, on the other hand, is paid for, meaning that people have the incentive to keep the same account as you'd have to pay again with a new account otherwise.
Roblox is better than Minecraft

Sorry again about not using the latest picture in Minecraft, I didn't know that it was made in 2012. Here is another comparison, with a mountain with houses on Minecraft, and some floating sky islands in Roblox.http://i.imgur.com... islands (No user-created textures, or shaders)http://i.imgur.com... mountain(1.8)The HD textures on Roblox are it's default ones, no one creates HD textures and uploads them to Roblox. Roblox offers 19 HD textures, which change depending on colour, so if you multiply it by the amount of colours you get 1216 HD textures, which are default, they can't be gotten from uploading your own textures. Like I said before, people don't sell Roblox's code. They sell their own creations made in Roblox. It isn't being sold for real money, only in-game currency, however the in-game currency can be converted to real money. There are no illegal things happening. In Roblox you can sell anything you create using Roblox's tools, however in Minecraft you can only sell what you create without Minecraft's tools. I believe I fixed the link, here you go. http://kotaku.com...When I said that Roblox had less players, I was assuming because of it's popularity. It seems Roblox has more players. Minecraft has about 17 million people, while Roblox has about 67 million people. There is a Roblox admin named Buildeman, and all Players are automatically friended with him when their account is created, so if you see how many friends he has, there are 66944185 people. Most of these are alternate accounts and deactivated accounts, so even a third of it is still more than Minecraft's players. Roblox also has a wide range of people who develop plugins, build things, and play other's games. You still haven't provided proof that Roblox is filled with 12-year olds, in fact since there are more Roblox players, it seems more unlikely that all of these players are kids.
Roblox is better than Minecraft

I would like to redirect the attention of the voters to the name of the "later picture". We agreed that we should use the "latest" version of Minecraft. This was taken/uploaded in 2012, which was two years ago. Minecraft has obviously increased its specs and resolutions since then. We are now on 1.8, therefore please stick to that in your argument. That argument is irrelevant until you get a 1.8 comparison. The roblox image is not found when I tried to go on it. Can you please redirect us to another link of it? As for the comparison of the Earth, here is a Roblox image: http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net...;. This image, in my subjective opinion, looks shabby and unprofessional. It looks like one of those old 90s games, while Minecraft has at least some new functions with its 3D environment. As we are talking Minecraft default textures, shall we keep it to Roblox default textures, as it seems unfair to compare something that can become HD in Minecraft to something that can be adjusted to HD is Roblox? Alike Roblox, anyone can create textures to improve the game's graphics. Therefore, it is subjective to compare these two games on its range of graphical ideas. Are you suggesting that people can sell parts of Roblox's code? That is illegal on many levels. Yes, you can sell server promotions and so forth, but you can do that in Roblox. You can also sell plugins and maps, which isn't illegal in Minecraft's terms of use. I think comparing this is also really controversial as what can be defined by these terms? Like in law, the judge interprets it however he sees fit, therefore there will be a variation in disagreement in whether these rules have been breached in certain aspects. We must stick to the facts and it is hard to place which game gives more leaway to the user. I would also like to say that this link you have given me also leads to an error. I never said that there was anything wrong with being a child. I just thought that the expertees in running servers and using maps and plugins are for the more mature, while building in Minecraft is for the more imaginative which is evident in children of a younger age. The fluctuation of the age range allows for a smooth environment as the imagination and the expertees exist. While Roblox, as you have said yourself, has "less players than Minecraft" meaning that there are less people with collective knowledge on building and running the game. It is like in UK Parliament, the astute and more mature people are put into Parliament, but the electorate can get involved in pressing the government using PMQs, debates and select committees. That is why it can be so efficient, because you have such a range of people.
Roblox is better than Minecraft

Although 1.8 may have a few minor bugs, it clearly is the most developed version, therefore I will use the most up-to-date version in my argument. Minecraft offers a unique sandbox game, which is most superior to Roblox. Minecraft has building tools and mechanical tools, like redstone, which are easy to use. You can change gameplay of single-player easily on the game's menu at the touch of a button. Setting up a server is pretty simple too as you can make it simple, using gratis-server or a basic Minecraft-server.exe, or complex, using Spigot, Craftbukkit and Plugins. With such variation in the game itself and the multiplayer aspects make this game unbeatable. Sure you can get a Roblox version of Murder and Hunger Games, but it misses the authenticity that is evident in Minecraft's version. To conclude my first point, the variation of the game makes the game replete with endless gameplay, which is vital in a sandbox, like Minecraft and Roblox. I believe that Minecraft is better because it is more effective in this area.