BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted

That is not true. Most vertebrates can feel pain and have a level of sentience. However, sapient animals go beyond. They are also be able to think, problem-solve, socialize, and feel many emotions. This includes grieving. So, by killing these animals, despite a lack of necessity, we cause emotional trauma to other related individuals comparable to that of a human. https://news.nationalgeographic.com... https://www.mnn.com... Would you kill a baby of someone you don't know because you would be given $1,000,000 for it? The baby is defenseless, and you have no direct attachment to it. Besides, people are extremely abundant. What harm would it do to the world? Now, you probably wouldn't. This is because A. The baby is a human being, even if it is not fully developed yet. B. It has a family who would miss it. C. It's cute. Now, the animals that I am referencing have the intelligence and awareness that is at the very least above the level of a baby's. These animals would also have individuals who would miss and mourn them. Third, there would be no survival-based necessity of it. If an elephant was murdering people and destroying property, it would be justified in killing it. If a chimp was about to attack you, it would be justified in killing it. If you were starving, and a dolphin wandered too close the shore, it would be justified in killing it. However, when people hunt these animals today, it is A. Out of pride; or B. For money. For example, the people of Japan enjoy eating the whales as a delicacy, but to them, anything that has meat is a delicacy, and they are not starving. The point is, it is wrong to kill other sapient animals out of or for pleasure.
Other Sapient Animals Should Not Be Hunted

Lots of people tend to be okay about killing other living things that aren't human. We justify this by thinking we are the only animals that could count as sapient, and that we should only kill each other if absolutely necessary. However, when it comes other animals, we actively seek them out and kill them, or kill them if they simply show up around our house. Now, most animals are not even close to having a human's mental capacity. However, cetaceans, primates, and some other animals show many signs of sapience, consciousness, and intelligence comparable to that of a human's. Despite that, some people still hunt these creatures despite a lack of necessity. The con must show why hunting animals that fall under these categories despite no survival-based need to kill them is justified. http://us.whales.org... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.iflscience.com... https://www.theatlantic.com... http://www.bbc.com...
Homework is Unnecessary.

Hey there! Just wanted to hear from people that don't think homework is necessary for schools. I will be taking the Con side of this debate, and will argue that homework is indeed necessary and should be required for any school. The debate will work as follows: Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Arguments (NO rebuttals) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Rebuttals to Rebuttals, Final Remarks Good luck! sketchb
Affirmative Action should be abolished

=Resolution=United States should ban Affirmative Action.DefinitionsShould: Indicating a desirability.Ban: Officially or legally prohibit.Affirmative Action: Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.Rules 1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere. No trolling.4. First round acceptance.5. No K's6. No deconstructional semantics.7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.9. By accepting you are gurnateeing to participate in this debate. I shall not accept any request to tie this debate, unless something serious has occured. Please, if you want to forfeit, just say you forfeit in the round rather than waiting 4 days.
Kim Kardashian & Kanye West Are Geniuses

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West are the definition of power couple. Their ridiculous antics and planned scandals plant their names squarely in the mainstream, constantly. Whether it's being robbed in Paris, saying stupid and politically inflammatory statements, or having "meltdowns" on TMZ, these two know exactly how to market themselves. Their manner of speaking is even "relatable" to you the layman. Kim Kardashian makes a sex tape and everyone feels bad for her. No way - she has rode (no pun intended) that wave to the top - influence, money, power, she is quite the businesswoman. Kanye is the perfect compliment.
Medical Marijuana has good effects.

Marijuana refers to the dried leaves, flowers, stems, and seeds from the hemp plant Cannabis sativa, which contains the psychoactive (mind-altering) chemical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), as well as other related compounds. This plant material can also be concentrated in a resin called hashish or a sticky black liquid called hash oil.Marijuana affects brain development, and when it is used heavily by young people, its effects on thinking and memory may last a long time or even be permanent. A recent study of marijuana users who began using in adolescence revealed substantially reduced connectivity among brain areas responsible for learning and memory. And a large long-term study in New Zealand showed that people who began smoking marijuana heavily in their teens lost an average of 8 points in IQ between age 13 and age 38. Importantly, the lost cognitive abilities were not fully restored in those who quit smoking marijuana as adults.Marijuana smoke is an irritant to the lungs, and frequent marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems experienced by tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, and a heightened risk of lung infections. One study found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than those who don’t smoke marijuana, mainly because of respiratory illnesses.Many have called for the legalization of marijuana to treat conditions including pain and nausea caused by HIV/AIDS, cancer, and other conditions, but clinical evidence has not shown that the therapeutic benefits of the marijuana plant outweigh its health risks. To be considered a legitimate medicine by the FDA, a substance must have well-defined and measurable ingredients that are consistent from one unit (such as a pill or injection) to the next. As the marijuana plant contains hundreds of chemical compounds that may have different effects and that vary from plant to plant, and because the plant is typically ingested via smoking, its use as a medicine is difficult to evaluate.http://www.webmd.com...http://www.livescience.com...http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org...
Medical Marijuana has good effects.

It can be used to treat Glaucoma.Prevents Blindness.It may help reverse the carcinogenic effects of tobacco and improve lung health.Increase of lung capacity.It can help control epileptic seizures.HTC can bind to the brain cells and calms the nerves.Marijuana helps veterans suffering from PTSD.Helps regulate fear and anxiety in the body and brain.http://www.businessinsider.com...
Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise

I'm a little puzzled as the the relevance of my opponent's structured list of the implications of the resolution. They stipulate (incorrectly) that a Christian theist is the only person capable of determining the resolution. This is obviously incorrect, as the only thing required is a rational answer to questions such as: Is an entity that murders babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise? Is an entity that ____________ morally repugnant and undeserving of praise? **************** >> "GIVEN THE BIBLE, non believers are immoral and deserving of eternal suffering, ergo God is morally "good" (given the bible.)" Actually, given the Bible, Jesus came to save Gentile AND Jew, so non-believers are clearly capable of being saved. However, according to the Bible, the believers and non-believers will be separated out and judged accordingly. However, the Bible seems to suggest that non-belief is in and of itself a sin deserving of eternal punishment, regardless of the fact that it's impossible for all people to have heard of God at the time of the Bible... But that's a whole different argument. Read Romans 1:18-20. >> "What is morality? Morality is the way we live our lives and we act towards other people." My opponent delivers this useful (?) definition of morality. Do we follow the acts of God in the above verses in our daily lives? Endorse slavery, genocide, filicide, kill babies? I think not. Ergo, by your own definition, God is immoral. >>"The Bible, as the moral guide, and God as in the Bible are inescapably and inherently related." Yes they are... and I have shown that the relationship is that God is a hypocrite, immoral, and undeserving of praise in the above Bible verses.
Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise

"It seems to me," - It seems to you, is as concrete in proving evidence as seems to me proves mine. My opponent offers up nothing to back his claim other than "it seems to me." Non the less my opponents premise is that according to the Bible, God is morally repugnant, thus ruling him undeserving of praise on grounds of morality. This premise of my opponents requires 3 assumptions. 1.) The Bible is presumed true 2.) The Christian God is presumed true 3.) Opponents resolve can only be determined accurate in a Christian view point because of 1, and 2. 1.) The Bible is presumed true a. My opponents resolution states "given the bible." b. We must derive our judgment considerations from the Bible, ergo, assuming truth. c. The Bible is the guide for Christian morality. 2.) The Christian God is presumed true a. We must assume the existence of God in order to cast our judgements upon 3.) Opponents resolve can only be determined in a Christian view point of morality due to 1 and 2. a. If we can only reach my opponents resolve giving 1 and 2, the Christian views are inherent. b. The opposing resolutions call for either one to give praise as proven, or not to give praise as proven. c. Obviously an atheist for example, would not offer praise wether or not the bible says God is immoral or not, ergo the resolution requires a Christian theist to determine the resolution as shown in the 3 assumptions required to prove my opponents resolution. *********** "And what about the moral, non believers that God sends to hell for the eternal suffering?" --> GIVEN THE BIBLE, non believers are immoral and deserving of eternal suffering, ergo God is morally "good" (given the bible.) As Christian, the assumed view point required to satisfy my opponents resolution, It is believed the Bible is the ultimate truth. The Bible is basically a set of rules we live our lives by. What is morality? Morality is the way we live our lives and we act towards other people. These are set out as rules in the Bible and Christians follow these rules as the basis of living. As per the book of Job,.. the meaning of Gods actions turned out to be bases of Christian morals, as well as jewish and islam for that matter. Jobs devotion to God despite the torture of the Devil and without Gods protection showed the correct way to unwaivering devotion to God. ******* Assuming the Bible is true, and God true as well,... judging God according to the Bible, requires the context in which God is depicted in the Bible and morality only defined in the Bible. The Bible, as the moral guide, and God as in the Bible are inescapably and inherently related.
Why Pro-Wrestling is a force to be reckoned with.

First off think you must know that a force to be reckoned with is just an figure of speech used in this way just as to sell its growing in numbers. So just that, it's following continues to skyrocket. Wrestling events around the Unted States continues to sell out arenas and different halls, which is why some of these smaller arena-esch places continue to stay open. Basic cable alone has grown to have 3 major wrestling entertainment federations broadcasted with a couple of off-&-on wrestling events being broadcasted. Since the late 80s wrestling gets millions of views on TV. In the 90s, it grew progressively with a popular new world order gimmick thrown on to the two current pro-wrestling shows from the WWF, NWA, and WCW. Again the numbers speak for itself. The World Wrestling Entertainmet Incorperated is grossing profits like never before. TNA iMPACT, once from NWA, grossed enough to put its indistry on television. Rings around the world are continuously sold out. WWE is a more social invested and talked about more than any other sport on the Internet today (it's there surprisingly). That's is why it is a force to be wreck ones with.
Why Pro-Wrestling is a force to be reckoned with.

Professional wrestling has taken a hit towards how people feel about the shows and programs. Being labeled "fake" as it's mane outlook, the sub-sport continues to grow under the pressure of its most aggressive opposers. I would like to debate amongst anyone why pro-wrestling is an upcoming sport within the bowels of the worlds athletic preservation, why it isn't to be taken likely, and why you are wrong. (Just kidding) LET THE GAMES BEGIN
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

You asked to accept this.Full ResolutionThe death penalty should be abolished.Definitions The Death Penalty: "...the sentence of execution for murder and some other capital crimes (serious crimes, especially murder, which are punishable by death)."[1]Should: "Must; ought."[2]Abolished: "To do away with; put an end to; annul; make void."[3] Rules1. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.2. No semantics or trolling.3. All arguments must be visible inside this debate, and character limits must not be broken. Sources may be posted in an outside link.4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.Debate StructureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)Round 3: Refutation of opponent's argumentsRound 4: Defending your arguments and conclusions (no new arguments)Sources[1]: http://definitions.uslegal.com...[2]: http://dictionary.reference.com...[3]: http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Death Penalty Should Be Abolished

Sadly, the timing of my turn for closing remarks didn't enable me the depth reply I wanted to go into, however in retrospect, where we are now is a good place for instead of a closing argument, just a simple summary. In the course of this discussion, we have seen quite a few things on the topic of the death penalty. We have seen the inconsistency borne of an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but how selectively only 1 of those particular rights are beyond the scope of justice. We have seen the right to life being forced upon people whom might agree that they are a perpetual threat to society, and feel that they should be stopped. We have seen how the rights of one possibly innocent man out weigh the rights of possible multiple potential victims. We have seen recidivism in those sentenced to the death penalty, but had their sentence commuted. We have seen the millions spent from those condemned but given the ability to play the system, wasting the time of hundreds of people, as well as consuming the tax dollars of those the sentenced has slain, as well as being paid for by the tax dollars of the victim’s family. I feel no need to rehash my first round. It speaks for itself, and more over, it speaks for those whom have been killed, some times in the worst ways imaginable, only to have their killer housed for life, no redemption possible, and the scales of justice left unbalanced. ;
THW: Encourage the construction of gender-neutral bathrooms

Firstly, there's very little reason to gender bathrooms in the first place- by opposing the construction of a gender-neutral bathroom, Con must necessarily advocate the position that most bathrooms should be gendered, and I feel they really have their job cut out for them- there's no benefit to gendering bathrooms so far as I can see. Gender-neutral bathrooms help promote equality: currently, it isn't uncommon to see baby changing facilities only in the womens' bathrooms. This is, of course, horribly sexist, as it assumes women to be the default childcare provider, and men not to be. Having a single gender-neutral bathroom with baby changing facilities removes this problem. Children are safer in gender-neutral bathrooms: consider a single father with a young daughter. When she turns seven, she is required to use the bathroom that matches her gender- she can't come into the mens' with her father. Likewise, he cannot come into the womens' bathroom with her. This means that she is left unattended, which is dangerous because she could encounter dangerous strangers, or even if she's completely alone, she could choke or have an asthma attack or something similar. A gender-neutral bathroom avoids this problem; everyone in the same room allows the father to ensure his daughter enters and leaves the cubicles alone, and to be present just outside the door in case of choking or some other emergency- his child is safer. Gendered bathrooms are a dilemma for transgender people- for instance, imagine a transgender women (i.e. someone whose sex at birth was that of a male but who identifies and presents as a woman) needing to use the bathroom. If she uses the mens' room, she misgenders herself, outs herself as trans, and risks getting beaten up. If she uses the womens', she risks getting yelled at, accused of being a pervert, misgendered by other people, and once again, getting beaten up. A single room with cubicles solves this problem- the issue needn't be gendered, and no one gets accused of being a pervert, or outed, or misgendered, or beaten up. Gender-neutral bathrooms save money; it's cheaper to build a single larger bathroom for everyone than to build two bathrooms typically over half the size. Saves money, and no drawbacks. Great! So in short, gender-neutral bathrooms help parents, children, transgender people, gender-equality, and even save money in the process. Hence, THW encourage the construction of gender-neutral bathrooms. Thank you for reading my case,
THW: Encourage the construction of gender-neutral bathrooms

Structure of debate: R1: Definitions and acceptance only. No arguments should be presented. Definitions provided by myself in this round are axiomatic, and must be accepted as the definitions used for the debate. R2: Main body of argument. R3: Refutation, summation. No new arguments may be made, but new refutation may be made. Definitions: "THW": Abbreviation for "This house would" i. e. , the idea being proposed. "Encourage": Voice support towards a particular action. "Gender-neutral": Available to anyone regardless of their sex or gender. "Sex": The physical state of being male, female or intersex. "Gender": The psychological state of being a man, a woman, both, neither or something else.
My phone was stolen, not 'Given away'

Okay buddy, just report it to the police, because this guy is obviously not your friend. He took your phone and paid for it to get fixed, and forced you to pay him to get back; then he won't even sell it. If you don't want to look like a ho and report it, just beat this guy and get your phone back or you're going to look like a total coward without a phone. I do not want that for you my guy.
My phone was stolen, not 'Given away'

A few days ago, my 'friend' said he could fix my phone, because the battery was swollen. So I lent it to him, and since I had to give him my password, he hard reset my phone, with all of my family photos and storage. He then paid 50 dollars to get it fixed, and put HIS account on it. He said if I wanted it back, I'd have to pay, so I got his money, and then he said it's not for sale. I'm not sure if I did something wrong, but can I have some feedback so I know what to do?!?!
the sun is bigger than the earth

The sun has a greater mass and greater volume, however "bigger" isn't a scientific measurement. Bigger is subjective to the person. for example, looking at the ground you would not be able to observe the whole earth, but when you look at the sky the sun appears small. Therefor the sun would appear smaller to the observer rather than its actual size. More massive yes, more volume yes, bigger? depends where your at in space. same as luminosity versus brightness.
According to the Bible, Adam and Eve are about 12,000 years old.

I have read about 2/3 of the Holy Bible, Children Catholic, Southern Baptist, and of course KJV. I have had many mentors, Crazed-Conservative history teacher, Super-commie Teacher, 3rd generation immigrant. My views on church are grim, I think I use the WWJD not like most. They use against the wrong people. Church must be a family gathering with a daily Eucharist. I've read some of the Qur'an about a little surface on his book. I know the Old Testament well and the New Testament better. I also love learning about science, and physics, and evolution, and space. I know not believe know that God created the world NOT in seven days. Symbolic. He would but Moses to sleep with the lengthy science answer. God needed a story to explain a secret deal. Sabbath. Why do we have seven days? Sabbath day is a gift from God and he got us to love the story. The seventh day he "rested". Who does not love the weekends? I kind of fits too. Light 1st, Heaven, Plants 2nd, Day and Night, Calendar etc. 3rd, Sea-life and winged things 4th, Bugs and land beasts and humans with authority over all things (intelligence is what we call it in America) He rested on our day. According to most this is direct coronation with Darwin believe values. I researched some for about a day and estimate the real ages to Adam and Eve 12,535- 12,850 years old I used the ages of all of Jesus' genealogy & Noah's as well. I "ASSUME" that Adam & Eve lived in the garden for about 0-315 years respectably. If you think it is Longer? Earlier? or think I am a crazy Christian because yeah if you are religious that religion is the most important thing, "truth, was is truth?" - Pontus Pilate. But thank you for reading so long God bless you and peace be with friend or foe.
Macro evolution isn't a good explanation for the diversity of life

I will use this first phase for acceptance only. I will be responsible for and will enthusiastically execute the task of demonstration that macroevolution (basically evolution in general) exists and therefore is a good explanation for the diversity of life. I look forward to a fantastic debate. But first I would like to agree to define marcoevolution just to avoid any confusion. I would like to use the definition of macroevolution that biologists use (which seems the only logical definition to use): a change at or above the species level (1). (1) . http://www.biology-online.org... Cheers