BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal

"If bullfighting is reformed to lessen the chances of the bull being hurt, it skyrockets the chances of the death of the matador."It's still the matadors choice to participate."Besides that, there are farms dedicated to providing beef, you don't need to kill the bull in the middle of the crowd for their bloody entertainment, it's barbaric."Sure, you don't need to, but there isn't anything wrong with it. It's not barbaric either, we're not publicly sacrificing humans to humiliate them. Bulls can only feel very basic emotions, so they can't be humiliated. To a bull, being killed in front of a crowd is no different than being killed in a slaughterhouse."The sport is simply to abuse an animal for the fun of the crowd."Your source says otherwise: "The vast majority of tourists are appalled by what happens at a bullfight and leave after they see what happens to the first bull." Most of the crowd doesn't think it's fun to watch a bull being tortured to death, that's why reforming the practice to make it painless would actually make it more entertaining.You also mention horses, but that can also be fixed by reform."The arteries inside the bull are so deep that trained bull physicians would have trouble attempting to kill the beast in one try."There are other ways to kill a bull quickly (such as lethal drugs)."I'm afraid I can't take it's word for it when it provides no other evidence to bulls being infuriated just by a waving cape. "Read this quote from my source: "Thus, the bull is likely irritated not by the muleta’s color, but by the cape’s movement as the matador whips it around."The source explicitly states that the bull charges because of the cape's movement. Your objection is baseless.ConclusionBullfighting does not need to be banned. It can be reformed so that the bull is killed painlessly, which would not only make the practice humane, but it would be more entertaining and much less likely to leave mental scars.
Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal

My reasoning to ban bull fighting was not mentioned with regars to the health of the matador, that is just a sub section of my argument. The one being abused in these fights are the bulls who have no choice in participation for their inevitable death.To give you an example of how abused the bull is in order for it to be infuriated and lessen chances of the matador being seriously injured, I will quote my source: "The bull has wet newspapers stuffed into his ears; vaseline is rubbed into his eyes to blur his vision; cotton is stuffed up his nostrils to cut off his respiration and a needle is stuck into his genitals."[1].If bullfighting is reformed to lessen the chances of the bull being hurt, it skyrockets the chances of the death of the matador. Besides that, there are farms dedicated to providing beef, you don't need to kill the bull in the middle of the crowd for their bloody entertainment, it's barbaric. Another quotation I shall use to provide evidence that the final kill is not meant to be merciful, but for entertainment is "Even then, he is not allowed a little dignity to leave this world in peace, his ears and tail are cut off (often when he is fully conscious), and his broken, bleeding body is dragged around the ring by mules, to which he is attached by an apparatus made of wood and chains." [1]. The sport is simply to abuse an animal for the fun of the crowd. Even other animals come at the expense of bull-fighting. In some more sadistic arenas, horses are maneuvered by the matadors. Since taking charge of a horse is not that challenging when they're tame, the matadors take the liberty to provide an extra challenge by the following. "Horses have their ears stuffed with wet newspaper, they are blindfolded and their vocal chords are cut so they are unable to scream in pain." [1]. The arteries inside the bull are so deep that trained bull physicians would have trouble attempting to kill the beast in one try. And finally, as for your source, it is not founded by any other source link. I'm afraid I can't take it's word for it when it provides no other evidence to bulls being infuriated just by a waving cape. Reforming bull fighting any other way will still leave serious mental and physical scars to all parties involved in the event. It is best if the practice is just abolished.Source:[1] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk... Good luck to my opponent in the voting.
Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal

The matador takes the risk of injury by his own conscious choice, so that is not a reason to ban bullfighting.The bull will charge without being infuriated, so it doesn't have to be tormented prior to the fight. http://www.livescience.com...Matadors should have mandatory training to make sure they can kill the bull painlessly.In conclusion, bullfighting can be reformed to eliminate the harms. It does not need to be banned.
Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal

The bull will not be motivated to drive towards the cape without being infuriated. You have no source to back up your claim, I'm afraid. The audience shows up to bullfighting for the sense of danger. Since bulls are not instinctively aggressive animals, they would simply walk around the arena unless being hit or provoked. My source in round 1 backs that up. I'm not vegan, I don't have an opinion or advocate against farming and herding in questionable conditions, although in bull-fighting there is no cause except for the sadistic joy of the audience to see the matador get hurt or the bull being abused. They try to kill the bull quickly and humanely, but again. Matadors aren't bull health specialists. My source again backs up that it takes multiple tries to just strike the bull in the artery, and then comes over a minute of bleeding to death in agonizing pain. The entire practice of this sadistic 'sport' needs to be abolished.
Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal

It is not necessary to ban bullfighting because it can be reformed to not cause pain to the bull.A bull will charge at a moving cape without being previously infuriated, so the pre-fight torment can be removed. During the fight, the matador doesn't have to harm the bull until the end when it should be killed quickly and humanely. It can then be made into beef, sold, and eaten. With restrictions, bullfighting can become acceptable.
Bull Fighting Should Be Illegal

Round 1: Opening Arguments Round 2: Rebuttals Round 3: Finishing Statements Bull fighting is an immoral sport and a complete affront to the progression of animal rights and basic humanity, let alone the danger to the matadors. I will start by describing the process of bull fighting. In Bull fighting, the bull is kept in horrible conditions with little care for it's health or well-being. The bull is teased constantly by fans and audience members to be put in an aggressive state. When the bull is released, it is relentlessly teased, abused and aggravated. Eventually, when time runs out, the bull is tired, or the matador is caught and injured the bull is constrained, and put down in an extremely immoral manner. The matador uses multiple spears to attempt to sever the artery either in the back of the neck or heart. Due to the matador not being an experienced bull-health specialist, it takes multiple times for the bull to be killed. Even when the artery is severed, the bull experiences severe pain until it bleeds to death [1]. Let it be known, that is the summarized version. My source link has much more detail. My argument is that any person with any form of empathy should realize how much pain the bull, who doesn't understand why this is being done to him, faces in the last hours of its life, until mercilessly and bloodily killed. (Source: [1] http://www.stopbullfighting.org.uk... )
This House supports mandatory drug testing to all Philippine High Schools

When faced with any proposed law, there is a fundamental fact that must be observed and a fundamental question that must be asked. Neither often is I'm afraid. The fact is: Law is a declaration of intent to kill whosoever should act against it's wishes. Whatever the explicit penalty, be it jail or a fine or a flogging, continued purposive action against a law will inevitably spiral into cancellation of the law by it's lack of effect, or death of the actor. Why? Because when facing arrest, such continued purposive action entails retaliatory force. In the attempt to create and enforce the law, a cycle is established in which either one side must surrender (surrender their will, their mind, their rights if they have any, and thereby their life into slavery), or they must die. The question is, by what right? By what right do you declare an intent to kill- for the "crime" of injecting substances into one's body, for the "crime" of refusing to disclose the chemical makeup of one's body. It's not your body after all. Law can only be justified in which the aforementioned cycle would exist whether the law existed or not-- that is, it can only be justified in RETALIATION to force. It CAN initiate force, just as you CAN walk up to the server for this site and sabotage it, but neither can do it by RIGHT. Also, how are you going to fund this? By theft, i.e. taxes? Including for the private schools? Taxation declares that every individual is the property of the government. Even if you can come up with some sort of emergency situation justification for it, you cannot justify it for something so petty. But you respond- drugs are bad? Well enough, but that is the business of the user and not of you. But you respond, "the Philippines don't want to be named a den of drug addicts?" You are worried, in a situation in which human freedom and thereby essentially life is at stake, about NAMECALLING?
This House supports mandatory drug testing to all Philippine High Schools

we are now faced with the motion that this house supports mandatory drug testing to all philippine high schools...Before I give the parameters of this debate let me first define the words involved in this debate...When we say mandatory we mean that we need to do it with force on the other hand drug testing is a test where a person could be identified as drug user...Now we come up with a theme that drug testing should be done in all high schools public or private with certain condition that the mandatory drug testing will be done every twice a month...I came up with this theme for this country is now facing an alarming rate of juvenile drug users which we cannot easily detect and if this event will goes on then ladies and gentlemen this country will certainly fall into crisis...Why?For the simple reason that this drug users are the youth...The youth who will become the hope of tomorrow...And if we will not act as soon as possible and will not impose the mandatory drug testing then we will not be aware that instead of taking care of the hope of our mother land we are now taking care of the future drug pushers of this country...Ladies and gentlemen why is it necessary to impose that drug testing it is for the following reason..First:The total awareness of the people...If the people will become aware of what is happening they can easily merge their ideas just to stop the growing problem of this society...They then could help the youth take the right path away from the trap...Second:It will serve as a warning to all those youth who wants to try using those illegal drugs they then will be save from the possible dark days...Ladies and gentlemen we need to have it mandatory so that the youth will listen and at the same time realize that what they are doing or what they will do is absolutely wrong...With this I open the Government's case by saying that What our country need is a good name we don't want to be haled as the den of drug addicts..right?
Astrology is pseudoscience.

Astrology has been believed in since c. 1000 BCE, at the latest. Many people still believe in some form of astrology today- nearly every newspaper has a daily column devoted to it. However, I argue that the belief in astrology is pure superstition. Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were not discovered until after the creation of astrology. The earliest astrologers only took the other planets in our solar system into account. This, I argue, destroys the very basis of astrology, because it debunks how astrology began. If we can't trust the basis of astrology, how can we trust astrology in general? I take the affirmative, or pro/for position in this debate: I accept the proposition that astrology is pseudoscience.
Astrology is pseudoscience.

My opponent argues that, for an individual, astrology is influenced by the 8 planets in our solar system, Pluto, the sun, and the moon. I reiterate that Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were unknown back when astrology began. See my argument for Round 1 for more on that. Secondly, why don't astrologers take planets from outside of our solar system into account? My opponent also claims that there are 12 astrological signs for an individual. However, there is also the sign known as Ophiuchus, the serpent. Why don't astrologers take Ophiucus into account? He also states that astrological charts of and individual can help you extrapolate personality traits of said individual. These charts usually involve the date of birth, the time of birth, and the place of birth. However, many twins, born mere minutes apart at the same location, are often polar opposites. So how can people with such similar birth charts be so different? My opponent asserts that the Greeks realized that it was better to cultivate grapes when Orion had reached its peak. However, whether or not it's a good season to cultivate grapes is controlled by factors such as temperature and location, so there is no proof that it has anything to do with Orion reaching its peak. Finally, my opponent claims that oysters were found opening and closing their mouths in relation to the tides, and that certain planetary positions at birth have often predicted success among individuals. However, correlation does not imply causation. Scientists may not know what the cause is yet, but they're still looking for the answer.
Intelligent Design in schools.

I'm not a very religious man. Indeed, I believe a very, very huge portion of religious people (e.g., Islamic fundamentalists) are very stupid. Yet I also believe that disallowing ID in public schools while allowing lessons on evolution is very stupid. Each provides a way to look at and understand our role in the grand scheme of things, and both should be taught in schools. Also, atheism is essentially a religion, so to allow evolution (which is central to atheism) while denying ID is tantamount to endorsing one religion (atheism) over another, which clearly violates our consitutional prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion and our political principle that the church and state ought to be kept separate. Finally, ID theory is scientifically rigorous and has been accepted by many smart men. So too has evolution. Why should one be kicked to the curb?
Why is the Mona Lisa considered a popular, beautiful work of art

The Mona Lisa is considered a beautiful work of art . The reason everyone cites for the Mona Lisa's popularity is her smile. The painting took two years to complete. This piece of art sitting behind a bullet proof glass at the museum in Paris, attracted around six million visitors per years. Only fifteen works can be assured attributed to the master , while there are just ten or so that are lost or disputed, so then, the painting has always been highly regarded. Until here, I would like to end my argument the title of ( Why is the Mona Lisa considered a popular, beautiful work of art).
Why is the Mona Lisa considered a popular, beautiful work of art

If you look at the Mona Lisa or any other style of art, what is the main reason they are considered famous, usually it's either the person was famous or social opinion has made it famous. I looked it up and the main reason the Mona Lisa is popular is because her smile is telling and mysterious, however who said this, why can't a third graders self portrait that they put a lot of time and effort into, be considered famous, you could say that there face was telling or something like that. What I'm trying to say is that social norms have made the Mona Lisa and other things not limited to artwork, beautiful.
Anarchism is the only political philosophy which respects international law

I assume Con means to say that international law wouldn't exist without a state. I don't see the relevance, And to illustrate this I urge you to imagine a national law outlawing the state. The law wouldn't exist without the state, Yet the state is still in violation of its own law. This is commonly known as "hypocrisy" and highlights the cultural and cognitive dissonance of these societies. As a counterexample, As an anarchist I hold the principles of republicanism and libertarianism, Namely of popular sovereignty and liberty, In high esteem. This apparent contradiction may at first glance seem to make me the hypocrite. Yet it is the other way around. I take the principles supposedly espoused by those political philosophies more seriously than their own adherents do, Driving them to their logical conclusions. On the off chance that Con is literally affirming that international law would exist without a state, I admit to be caught off-guard. I still don't see the relevance but I don't dismiss the thought of asking for further clarification.
Evolution (Pro) vs. Creation (Con)

Hello and thank you for challenging me to this debate. I ask that we refer to the GTE (General Theory of Evolution), defined by evolutionist Gerald Kerkut -- "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form." Also where you call creation a religion belief, you can also add that on to your definition of evolution. Religion can be defined as 'a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.' The theory of evolution is just that. Evolution is a belief about what happened in the unobservable past. It's a believe about the cause of the universe, and Richard Dawkins even comments on the purpose. And yes I am referring to our Creator, the God of the Bible who created everything about 6000 years ago. Our Different Starting Points We have different presuppositions (unprovable beliefs). Presuppositions are just beliefs that affects how we think, view the world, and interpret the evidence. Creationists and evolutionists, we all have the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars, the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret the facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions; these are things that are assumed to be true without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions. This is even all the more important when dealing with past events. For example, my starting point is that the Bible is true, and it is the word of God. Therein, my presuppositions are that the earth was created 6000 years ago by our God. Your starting point is there is no god, and that the universe is billions of years old. So evolutionists interpret the facts in a way that will make that seem true, because of their presuppositions This was not part of my argument, just informing you and others that we all have these unprovable beliefs -- presuppositions, that we start with.
Evolution (Pro) vs. Creation (Con)

Thanks to Levine to his willingness to debate this topic. My resolution: Humans most likely evolved from earlier hominids.Rules-Please no trolling or semantics.Definitions-evolution- the change in the inherited characteristicsof biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and moleculessuch as DNA and proteins.[1] Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestorapproximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergenceof life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstructevolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.creation- the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God. Round Structure-1. Acceptance2. Main Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals/Resolution Reached
Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US

The deciding factor of the matter is this: is the cost of free education worth the benefits? Here are the benefits for free education: 1. Education will be widely available for all 2. The Tertiary education rate in America will go up Cost for free education: 1. More taxes overall, which lowers the value and potency of the economy, gradually destroying the US economy. As John Marshall said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." 2. Educators will be paid less/Knowledge will go down in value because that which is widely available is worth less. 3. Takes away more rights of the people. The depth of the matter is this: 66% of jobs in the USA does not require a college degree. If we were to offer free higher education for all, and if 70% of graduating students moved on to college, half of those students who got a degree will not find a job that would relate to their degree, and the money spent on that degree will be wasted. What is the point of providing free college education if most of it will be wasted?
Using Taxes for "Free" Higher Education in the US

An additional tax is vague. But every tax that ever is enacted always ends up hurting the people. And since the top 10% pay 70% of the US's taxes, any additional tax is mainly upon the rich. To go along with that, your argument based upon student's valuing school based on grades is invalid. Providing education for free gives everyone free education. Have you heard the phrase "saying everyone is special is another way of saying no one is"? This goes with education. If everyone has something at no direct cost to them, it has far less value to them. Given, there are a select few "nerds" (like us) that appreciate their education and strive to make their lives better through it, but as a whole, people don't value school.