BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals should be kept in Zoos

first, i would also like to add i would be surprised if u didn't win, just saying. anyway "First off, you're thinking of circuses. Secondly, even then that only happens in a fraction of circuses. Third, Zoo's and reservations that keep animals in captivity simply feed them ample amounts of whatever it is they eat and let them live, they most certainly do not tazer them into performing for us. " so u believe only circuses, correct? what of all the acts shown to us? elephants running on balls etc. i apologize if u haven't been to a zoo but that is always the case for me. also, if you didn't kknow this either, i meant the scraps of some animals are given to others, these often being meagre amounts,not ample. there is only enough food for them when they are in public. again i was unclear so i apologise. just last year there was an incident where an elephant was shocked to near death, unless i am mistaken, by an electrical rod. "the human was dumb enough to climb over one or more fences" argh im being so unclear, sorry anyway, i mean the keeper or the trainer when taking care of them have been known to face injuries to lash out at them in a fit of rage, not some psychopath leaping over the fence. "2) A lion kills a human in their habitata in a zoo............. Suddenly it is the lion's fault " it is still the human's fault for hindering them in the first place, capturing them in a zoo and putting them in captivity for someone to stare open-mouthed at. causing their rage to build up those links you have given are quite true in some cases- not all zoos are the same "Its pretty easy to learn to hunt again, all you gotta do is kill something slower than you, and its worked many times before" say u haven't played a sport for several years. im sure that u won't be as good or able to do it properly. it applies for hunting too, as well as survival. they may not be able to stalk their prey as well and will starve like a cheetah after a gazelle, they might die. no space- to arg
Animals should be kept in Zoos

"it is utterly in humane and they are often violently whipped and shocked with weapons. they r forced to... perform tricks for our enjoyment"First off, you're thinking of circuses. Secondly, even then that only happens in a fraction of circuses. Third, Zoo's and reservations that keep animals in captivity simply feed them ample amounts of whatever it is they eat and let them live, they most certainly do not tazer them into performing for us. "they are not cared for properly and are often fed scraps."Animals are fed very ample amounts of food, from Lions to Seals to the Whales at Sea World, animals in captivity are fed rather well, even the very small and very large ones. "behind the scenes shocking deeds are happening"Yes I too am very shocked at how properly cared for these animals are, how much attention is given to them medically, and how the staff works very hard to make sure the animals are healthy. http://westernviews.us...http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com..."there have been many death concerning this matter where the victim is mutilated in the act of the animal's rage of being kept in captivity."Its not the animals fault that the human was dumb enough to climb over one or more fences to get a good picture of it while it was at peace, its the human's fault.....Heres a riddle1) A lion kills a human in the wild in Africa............ Not the lion's fault, thats just what lions do2) A lion kills a human in their habitata in a zoo............. Suddenly it is the lion's fault "breeding programs have been organised to try to lift the animal population, when they're released into the wild they will have no knowledge of how to hunt and survive."Its pretty easy to learn to hunt again, all you gotta do is kill something slower than you, and its worked many times beforehttp://www.aza.org...2000 limit?????
Animals should be kept in Zoos

before I begin I would like to state I'm in primary OC and wish to test my skills against someone older than me please ignore grammatical errors anyway An animal is a living thing. we humans are animals too. the topic of discussion is animals should be kept in captivity as the negative side I am undoubtedly sure that animals should not be cruelly kept in captivity. it is utterly in humane and they are often violently whipped and shocked with weapons. they r forced to unnaturally do acts and are often starved for weeks on end to perform tricks for our enjoyment. they are not cared for properly and are often fed scraps. behind the scenes shocking deeds are happening. would you enjoy something at the cost of another being? they definitely shouldn't be kept in zoos Further more it is dangerous as the natural instincts will be curbed and may kill or attack humans. there have been many death concerning this matter where the victim is mutilated in the act of the animal's rage of being kept in captivity. although breeding programs have been organised to try to lift the animal population, when they are again released into the wild they will have no knowledge of how to hunt and survive. sorry but I can't think of any more arguments for now someone please debate against me
Resolved: Social abortions ought not be legal in the US.

(Note: Only people who are familiar with LD should take this debate; however if you do not know LD and would till like to do it, I have no problem with that.) I affirm: Social abortions ought not be legal in the US. For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations: 1. Resolution states "Social" abortions, therefore the resolution is dealing with the context of abortions excluding health related mother issues, or rape. 2. Resolution states "ought" implying some sort of obligation. 3. Resolution is in a US framework. The negative values justice which is giving each their due. There are two reasons why justice is an appropriate value. First, the resolution implies an obligation we must evaluate the resolution based from that standpoint. I.e. an obligation that goes beyond simple necessity. Second, the resolution asks for the legality of the issue. Laws ought to be just. The value of justice is achieved by the criterion of Respecting Human Worth. This is an appropriate evaluative standard because justice is what giving each their due is. This definition can only apply because justice is based on human worth itself, and what is due to a specific person. Justice ,furthermore, is able to be weighed based on this VC. For example, it is wrong to rape a rapist because it undermines that rapists human worth. However, it is not unjsut to incarcerate that rapist because it does not violate any human worth. Contention I: Abortion is a form of dehumanization Abortion is the act of terminating a human being. The affirmative's advocacy is not that abortion is a violation of rights, rather the advocacy is that killing any type of human without due cause is dehumanization. For example, slavery is unjust because it violates a human without due cause. Furthermore, extend this logic to abortion. The human-fetus has no defense mechanism against the abortionist's medical tools. Clearly ripping a baby ought not only dehumanizes that baby, it creates a moral stigmatization within society. Society is allowing an act which dehumanizes, thus it is unjust.
Catholic Church bring Good and Peace in the World

My opponent seems to be in denial at this point. 1. He refused to quote the only argument of mine that he decided to attack. 2. "If you think that Catholic Church is bringing trouble to the World you must show me that the CC have done this killing at the start of the Catholic Church in the first century. " Why is it just the first century? The Catholic Church is an organization from the first century to modern day, all I have to prove is the evil it has done between those two points, which I have. "You do not know that during the 1st to 4th century the Catholic Church were killed until Constantine who abolished the persecutions of Christians. " I do know about such an event, I know my history. Just because the Catholic Church was persecuted at one point in history doesn't give them the right to do the same. "You have to show me that the Catholic Church were killing people or any abuses commanded by the Pope as the leader of the Church from first century until now? If you re not able to show me, your arguments is very weak. " Read my first argument again. Conclusion: Ladies and gentleman, I thank you for reading this debate. Let me go through a brief summary of the history I went through to show how evil the Catholic Church is. First, the Taiping Revolution, the bloodiest civil war with an estimate of 20 million deaths. The Inquisition, a point in time in which people who didn't believe in the same thing the Catholic Church believed in were severely tortured. To top off the major events, 80,000 Orphans shipped from the UK, 10,000 of which were at the age of 3, to commonwealth countries. The children were then sexually, physically and emotionally abused for 80 years and used as free labor. Now my opponent has asked me to show how the leaders are at fault in history. So let me do a quick rundown of all the evil leaders: Pope Damasus: Sold women and children as sex slaves for funding for the church. Pope Urban II: Ordered the death of 10 million, Pope Innocent III: Ordered the death of 1 million. Pope Pius XII: Helped Hitler, set up a military group based off of the Croatian Ustashi which is responsible for the murder of 600,000. Pope John Paul II: Worked for a chemical manufacturer which sold their poison gas to Nazi Germany, Pope Gregory IX: Established 3 inquisitions in which 650,000 were murdered and Pope John XXIII: Charged with repeated incest, murder, cannibalism, orgies, ritualistic murder of children and sodomy. Let me add up how many deaths the Church is known to be responsible for: 32,250,000 deaths. 1 death is too many. No sane person can think an organization responsible for 32,250,000 deaths is a force for good in the world. Hitler killed 6 million and the Church killed 32 million. It's more than 5x than Hitler. I wrest my case.
Catholic Church bring Good and Peace in the World

"'I have already answer you that the INQUISITION due to the HERESIES AGAINST CATHOLIC CHURCH Teachings like God who order Moses to kill the people (Exodo 32:27-29). If you think that Catholic Church is bringing trouble in the World you must show me that the CC have done this killing at the start of the Catholic Church in first century. You do not know that during the 1st to 4th century the Catholic Church were killed until Constantine who abolished the persecutions of Christians. http://en.wikipedia.org...You have to show me that the Catholic Church were killing people or any abuses commanded by the Pope as the leader of the Church from first century until now? if you are not able to show me, your arguments is very weak.
Catholic Church bring Good and Peace in the World

I apologize for the forfiture, I had something really personal happen to me in which I wasn't emotionally stable enough to come on and debate. I have no idea where this whole World Trade Center idea is coming from, this is why you should always quote the argument you're attacking so the other person knows what statement you're referring to. If you point out exactly in my argument where I blamed the Catholic Church I will gladly explain it to you and show you my reference. As always, all of my evidence is in my works cited. "MY opponnent don't have any idea of what "GOOD and PEACE", means. Unfortunately, I do understand what good and peace means. I don't know what sick world you live in where you think that any organization is a force for good and peace when it was involved in the sexually, physically and emotional abuse of 10,000 orphans for 80 years, the cause of the bloodiest civil war, the inquisition in which many died because they did not agree with the church, leaders who tortured, killed, raped, ordered crusades, worked along with hitler, made gas for the Nazi's, accused of kidnapping and slavely and incest and cannibalism. "My stand and my arguments are very strong and firm. My opponent have no weapons to destroy the truth of my arguments." You do not stand very strong and firm, sir. No sane and rational human being can think all of those crimes against humanity, regardless of any of the excuses.
Catholic Church bring Good and Peace in the World

My opponent do not know about the debate. My friend the debate is define in this like so that you will know the meaning. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...You did not agree that the Catholic Church bring peace and Good in the World because of the great trouble in the world.My question is, What is your evidence that the last September 11, 2001 that the Catholic Church is the mastermind of the World trade center attack?
Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton

Personally, I believe that Donald Trump will take better care of America than Hillary Clinton. Both the Clintons have been known for scandals such as the rapes committed by Bill Clinton. Here is a link to the names of all the names of the women has raped and gotten away with. https://en.wikipedia.org... Hillary Clinton has also gotten away with scandals such as the email scandal in 2009. She held a private server for government business and that alone breaks rules but not only that, but the emails also contained classified and top secret information, therefore putting our country at risk. The woman has lied so many times to cover it up after being proven guilty, but she still hasn't suffered the consequence. This tells us that she has too much power now, and God help us if she enters the white house again...
Free will is a Social construct giving the illusion of autonomous thought

There is nothing worse to be invited along to a party only to find that the host has not bothered to turned up. To expand on my first round. .. . My opponent has failed to put forward any kind of an argument by forfeiting two rounds. They have soundly demonstrated that even when an individual sets up a debate on DDO they are able to make a great change in their decision making process to completely ignore the commitment they made prior. This decision to forfeit with no notification goes against all social constructs of manners and politeness and further lends to my argument that free will is nothing like what my opponent has put forward.
Free will is a Social construct giving the illusion of autonomous thought

Well this is not a good start - I won't spend a lot of my time crafting an elaborate and elequent arguement just in case my oponent does not reappear. So for the sake of putting something down that is marginally more convincing than a concession..... I will be arguing on three different fronts: 1. Free will is not a social construct: Although social constructs and society norms do have impact and influence on our decisions they do not negate the ability for us to make decisions that determine our future. 2. Free will is not an illustion, As we are able to direct the course of our existence free will is not an illusion 3. We have autonomous thought. Although sometimes it can take effort, humans are capable of transending the influences of their existence and experience to make decisions that set them on a different path. The belief of anything other than this suggests that we are mindless, directionless beings incapable bettering or challenging the status quo over to you....??
Free will is a Social construct giving the illusion of autonomous thought

While I do believe that people THINK they have some sort of freedom in the choices they make throughout life and to some extent autonomous thought, I also believe that these perceptions of free will are an artificial construction that either never existed or no longer exists and instead acts as a placeholder for true free will. I'll be discussing various societal obligations and taboos, both old and contemporary. and how these factors have impacted our autonomy. Also as a reminder, I'm open to new ideas and would like to be convinced otherwise on the topic matter. Also if citing a source, please make sure it's credible and if providing an analysis on a text, please be in-depth but concise, otherwise anyone that feels confident discussing this topic, please do.
Donald Trump

I hope we have a good debate ThisIsNotMe, now on to serious business Ok first off, what has Trump really done good that isn't making him the laughing stock? Your arguments make no sense and isn't true. He has banned people from 7 nations just because of a few Islamic terrorists which I just wrong. He also denies global warming and pulled the U.S out Paris agreement and is provoking war against N.Korea. Does that sound? His approval ratings are also REALLY low which makes sense because of what he has done since he was elected, even Bush was at least better than him.
Google Search is a Reputable Source

1 "Con didn't respond" [12] so "pro wins the point" [13] because "silence is consent" [14]2 Con: GOogle states itself unreliable [3]. "Look to my first point" [15], "Con didn't respond" [12] so "Con is wrong" [6].3 Rules: All arguments must be supported by reputable sources [3]. "Each of their sentences" [16] are "an argument" [7] but "has no evidence" [8]. "Disregard their argument" [9].4 Con: Pro arguments fake [3]. But "Con is illuminati" [10] so "you can't trust con" [11].CONDUCT:Neither [3]GRAMMAR:Pro. Look at Con's spelling [3]ARGUMENT:Pro [3]. Pro won 1 since Con didn't respond [3], Con lost 3 and broke rules by making statements without citing a source for each statement [3], Con lost 4 and is lying illuminati [3].SOURCES:Pro has 17 sources [3], Con has 3 [3][12]google.com/search?q="con+didn't+respond"[13]google.com/search?q="pro+wins+the+point"[14]google.com/search?q="silence+is+consent"[15]google.com/search?q="look+to+my+first+point"[16]google.com/search?q="each+of+their+sentences"
Google Search is a Reputable Source

https://www.google.com...GOogle clearly stat es itself to be unreliable, so even if it may or may not be reliable, google tells you that it isn't reliable, leading the conclusion to be GOogle not being reliable to avoid the logical contradiction.https://www.google.com...Pro arguments are fake accoring to GOOGLE ITSELF, so if Pro is trying to say Google is reliable, Pro loses as the "reliable" source says that Pro's arguments are lies
Google Search is a Reputable Source

1 "Google is a reliable source" [1] and "Google is true [2] so "pro must win" [3].2 Con: google said unreliable [1]. Con search prove "google not reilable" [2]. But "reilable" not "reliable" [3]; "Con is wrong" [4].3 Con: logical contradiction If google not reliable I win [1]. But "this is an argument" [5], "Con has no evidence" [6], and "All arguments must be supported by reputable sources" [1]. You must "disregard their argument" [7].4 "Con is illuminati" [10] so "you can't trust con" [11].[1]google.com/search?q="google+is+a+reliable+source"[2]google.com/search?q="google+is+true"[3]google.com/search?q="pro+must+win"[3]debate.org/debate/73232/[4]google.com/search?q=google+is+not+a+reilable+source[5]google.com/search?q="reilable"[6]google.com/search?q="con+is+wrong"[7]google.com/search?q="this+is+an+argument"[8]google.com/search?q="con+has+no+evidence"[9]google.com/search?q="disregard+their+argument"[10]google.com/search?q="con+is+illuminati"[11]google.com/search?q="you+can't+trust+con"
Women are better at making sandwiches than Men

"Women are better at infusing their sandwiches with emotions, using their menstrual super powers" Pro gives no evidence of this. There is no reason to believe that women are able to infuse sandwiches with emotions. "Women are way better at 'working dem hips' and getting that 'plump breast doh'. This means that they are adept at making sandwhiches 'sexualy arousing'. Must I also point out, that, they have softer bodies, so they run less of a risk to crush or mutilate a sandwich" Again, Pro does not give any evidence of his claims. Pro's arguments are bare assertions that should be ignored until he provides proof of the claims. In addition to the lack of evidence of women being better than men at making sandwiches, evidence suggests that men are actually the superior sandwich makers. Many men have started successful businesses that are centered around sandwiches. In addition, guys have created some of the most successful sandwiches ever, including the mighty hamburger (created by Fletcher Davis). [1] Clearly, pro has failed to prove his case and I have given evidence as to why men are talented sandwich makers. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day! Source: [1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Women are better at making sandwiches than Men

Alright, well, good luck to my opponent. Women are better at infusing their sandwiches with emotions, using their menstrual super powers. Need I say more? Yes. Women are way better at 'working dem hips' and getting that 'plump breast doh'. This means that they are adept at making sandwhiches 'sexualy arousing'. Must I also point out, that, they have softer bodies, so they run less of a risk to crush or mutilate a sandwich.
Raise the minimum wage.

Here is a scenario: The mimimum wage is raised $3 to $10. Every hourly worker wil get a raise. Why? The workers who worked their way up to $10 will rightfully ask for a raise because now the entry level people are making the same as them. This will go on up the ladder. Everyone shifts up. Now all companies, including many small ones, are literally losing money by the hour. Let's take a McDonald's franchise as an example. This McDonalds franchise has 50 employees. 50 employees times $3/hr raise for each equals $150/hr more! That's $2.50 a minute! If that doesn't get you time yourself on how long it takes you to read the rest of this post and multiply the number of minues by $2.50 and that is how much money you would have lost if you ran a McDonald's franchise in this scenario. Meanwhile the McDonald's franchise is losing money fast. They have to recoup it fast. They have two options:1. Increase income2. Reduce expensesOption #1 means they would raise prices as it's their primary source of income besides the money they get from the parent company which is at a fixed rate and they can't easily and quickly just ask for more. Franchises manager their own money, they don't have unlimited access to all of the money McDonald's has. Raising prices is the quickest way for them. When prices raise in a free market economy, other prices raise as well. For example, if McDonald's raises the price of a BigMac, the producers who produce the ingredients will raise their prices accordingly. For example, the farmer who produces the beef. He doesn't like McDonald's selling his beef for a larger markup than before. He will raise his prices accordingly. To keep it fair he'll raise his prices for all his customers, including a local grocery store. The store in turn will raise it's prices and creates a vicious cycle. So the price of beef will rise. And that is just one small example. This goes for the bakers of the buns, the farmers of the tomatoes! lettuce and onions... It even goes for the makers of the ketchup, mustard and mayo. Oh, and McDonald's has make chicken and fish sandwiches so the price of those meats will rise as well. As will all the things production businesses with hourly workers buy. This is all in correlation to the raise in prices the businesses made wich was in turn in correlation with the raised wages. So price increases correlate with wage increases creating a basic net zero for the hourly workers. This will hurt the unemployed since they did not get a raise. All in all Option #1 is not good because it will cause ripple effects of price raises throughout the economy hurting the unemployed and not helping the hourly workers.Option #2 is to reduce expenses. Since this needs to be done quick it will result in less quality of produced goods. Our theoretical McDonald's franchise will either buy less ingredients, or sell some machines, both in turn producing less burgers. They could also fire workers which was not the point of the raise in the first place and which also lessens production. All in all Option #2 is bad because it causes companies to produce less and increases unemployment, stifling the economy.