BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tourism benefits the world.

CON's 1st point: This cited incident occurred due to poor relations between the west and Iraq as well as the fact that the security in Iraq is poor. Since the removal of both of these factors in no way compromises the concept of tourism itself, we cannot conclude that "tourism" was the problem. CON's 2nd point: He is correct to cite pollution as being a problem which is directly associated with tourism and that repairs cost money, however, in exchanging for managing the costs of repair, like many sites which masses of individuals pay to visit, the government in turn receives a heaping portion of tourism revenue. Essentially, it's equivalent exchange. The criminal activities he cites can be dismissed due to have no relevance to tourism (though PRO is free to elaborate). Conclusion: Tourism may cause pollution, but this is merely a small price to pay in exchange for high amounts of profit and the opportunity to increase relations with other countries, thus making it beneficial.
Tourism benefits the world.

Hello, I believe that tourism does not benefit the world for a number of reasons. First and foremost, many racial attacks and conflicts have occurred as a direct result of tourism, for example when Western tourists visited Iraq in 1998 and several were kidnapped. Second, pollution is a huge problem in rural areas visited by tourists. For example in the Snowdonia National Park in Wales, many paths are destroyed which costs the government a lot of money to repair. Also, in places such as Marbaya in Spain, drugs, sex trafficking and litter are overwhelming the local police force, with statistics such as that 3 in 5 local women are prostitutes on the BBC's website. Therefore, although some good comes about from tourism, such as that it helps local economies, on the whole it cannot be said that tourism benefits the world.
This house believes when in conflict, media responsibility iimportant than freedom of speech

I am sorry for my last round. It was a huge mistake. Unto my argument. The resolution of this debate, was to either affirm that media responsibility was and continued to be valued above the freedom of speech by the house. With this said, we can clearly see how my opponent argued against the realm of the resolution. No where did my opponent discuss a scenario in which the media was valued over the freedom of speech. My opponent defined the freedom of speech as "equal" to the first amendment in the sense that the first amendment is freedom of speech. Within the first amendment is the freedom of the press which as defined by my opponent is the media. Defending freedom of press is essential defending freedom of speech as defined by my opponent. My opponent brought up the fact that "The media must not do anything to cause or do harm to our nation. This would mean government has to intervene with what can be released this would include not causing any release of false statements, release of secrets, and setting boundaries with what is said ." When looking deeply and analyzing this fact, we can clearly see that it is not meant to serve as a violation of the first amendment, but meant to serve as a protector to the principles ensured by the declaration of independence. upon looking at the media responsibility which is the belief that mass media have a basic responsibility to help strengthen and support democratic processes, we find that controlling the information they leak into the public, helps protect the United States citizens as 1. it stops the leak of information to the opposing country 2. It avoids mass public panic, thus making the job of the military easier as the government attention and resources isn't spread out but directed to the problem at hand. Upon achieving these two goals, the United States is able to maintain the democratic principles that it upholds thus allowing for the freedom of speech. "An example during times of world war 1 Charles Schenck, was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, participated in many antiwar activities in violation of the Espionage Act, including the mailing of about 15,000 leaflets urging draftees and soldiers to resist the draft. He was arrested and charged with "causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and naval forces of the United States" and with disturbing the draft. He was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for violating the Espionage Act of 1917, and he appealed his case to the Supreme Court." This scenario only proves that the control of the information leaked is beneficial to the United States. Had it being that Charles succeeded, he would have placed the United States in a very vulnerable position which in turn would threaten the freedom of speech. Media responsibility is not viewed as a superior to the freedom of speech, but as a guidance to maintain and uphold the freedom that we all so cherish. Thank you. (character limits)
This house believes when in conflict, media responsibility iimportant than freedom of speech

"he United States is the only nation capable of unilaterally conducting large-scale, effective military operations far beyond its borders. There is and will continue to be a great demand for U.S. forces, not only to protect the United States from direct threats and to help maintain peace and stability in regions critical to U.S. interests, but also to help support multinational efforts to bring peace to regions torn by ethnic, tribal, or religious conflicts and to ameliorate human suffering." http://www.dod.mil... To round the debate, I will like to start by stating voters. 1. I won because I provided evidence to support my case which was one of my opponents rules. 2. My opponent did not follow this rule so he automatically looses. 3. I simply stated my position thus completing my opponents second rule. 4. My opponent forfeited. Thank you and I hope to debate you in future debates.
This house believes when in conflict, media responsibility iimportant than freedom of speech

Hi guys Im new and a beginner at this. This is just practice for me for my school so I look for some constructive feedback Thanks. Resolve: This house believes that when in conflict, media responsibility is more important than freedom of speech. Conflict is defined as trouble like war. Media is defined as News (anything news related TV, radio, & newspaper). Freedom of speech = 1st amendment. Freedom of speech is something that we the citizen of the US get to have as it states in the 1st amendment but, how much of freedom do we have? In times of war many of us have to try to understand why our nation does the things it does in times of war which is to focus on the security and protection of our nation; therefore, media responsibility is more important than freedom of speech. The media must not do anything to cause or do harm to our nation. This would mean government has to intervene with what can be released this would include not causing any release of false statements, release of secrets, and setting boundaries with what is said . An example during times of world war 1 Charles Schenck, was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, participated in many antiwar activities in violation of the Espionage Act, including the mailing of about 15,000 leaflets urging draftees and soldiers to resist the draft. He was arrested and charged with "causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and naval forces of the United States" and with disturbing the draft. He was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for violating the Espionage Act of 1917, and he appealed his case to the Supreme Court. Also, according to the CIA, in times of war, controlling public information that an enemy might exploit to undermine the conduct of military operations, strategic policy, or homeland defense, becomes as important as managing official secrets. The current war on terrorism is no different. Information once considered innocuous—such as structural data for stadiums, bridges, and public works—is now considered to have an intelligence value for terrorists. We, who became citizens of this country, should be supportive and understanding to our nation in time of need and not betray.
This house believes that animal zoos should be banned

The best kept animals in the best zoos of the world still do not live as long as they would have in the wild. [Wild Elephants Live Longer Than Their Zoo Counterparts http://news.nationalgeographic.com...]Regardless of the level of luxury provided by a zoo; regardless of why or where the animal is held captive; something or someone else forces this life upon them. This act is the obvious crime against nature that cannot be debated away with any amount of value against it. Even if your points are valuable, logical and reasonable, they should never be considered more valuable than life itself.While going to the jungle is not as convenient as going downtown to the zoo, in modern times it is not out of the realm of possibility to see animals in other ways. [No Zoo for You: 7 Best Spots to See Wild Animals http://www.takepart.com...]Rationalizing the jailing of animals by listing convenience of viewing or claiming luxurious living conditions to ease conscience still does not remove the burden of responsibility for being held prisoner. The points presented for having zoos do not undo the damage done by captivity.While the shape and condition of zoos may vary from horrible to not so horrible, zoos certainly do not allow the animals to live the way nature intended.
This house believes that animal zoos should be banned

To address the issue about the cruelty on animals, I would say that zoo animals are not beaten to death; they are well cared of by their caretaker. Zoos are arranged in away that animals are living in almost similar environment they used to live. We are talking about animals in zoos, not in laboratory where they will be subjected to experiments. Don’t you want to save endangered species? How about those animal lovers who want to see animals? The caretakers of animals, where would they go? You want your children to go to the jungle just to see a lion? Yes, I agree animal zoos are not perfect but they are made suitable for animals to live like the normal way. Another, It’s like you are saying that all animals in this world are held captive; that they are beaten every day.They are provided with food, medicines, and other needs. Think about the endangered animals! Think about the people who will lose their job! Think about educational opportunities! Think about the animals lovers who go to see animals in the zoo. We are not talking about experimenting animals in the laboratory, we are talking about animal zoos that provide educational enhancement and help endangered animals
This house believes that animal zoos should be banned

Even if I agree with every point you make towards education and preservation, your points never outweigh the transgression against another living thing through captivity. The creatures are powerless to prevent themselves from being confined. If any sentient being that is able to make such a choice is allowed to make a choice, none would chose to have their movement restricted. None would chose to exclusively exist for someone else’s educational and artistic benefit. None would chose to trade their home for a cage, that choice is systematically forced upon them. Your listed value is not equal to the amount of moral and ethical sacrifice. Please Get The Facts: Ten Fast Facts about Captive Exotic Animals 1. Captive exotic animals are abused and exploited in a variety of settings, including research and product testing, the entertainment industry, fur farms, and the exotic “pet” trade. 2. Keeping wild animals in captivity is inherently cruel, as it deprives them of the ability to freely engage in instinctual behaviors in their natural environment. 3. Even when bred in captivity, exotic animals retain all of their natural instincts. They cannot be considered “domesticated” or “tamed.” 4. Every year, captive exotic animals are involved in incidents in which humans are injured or even killed. 5. Although many industries using captive exotic animals claim to be aiding in conservation, very few captive breeding programs actually address the real threats facing imperiled animals in the wild, such as habitat destruction. 6. The demand for wild animals as “pets” or for use in entertainment harms populations of these animals in the wild by increasing the likelihood of poaching and wild capture. 7. Whether in the zoo or the circus, wild animals produced in captive breeding programs are almost never released into the wild; instead, they are doomed to a life in captivity 8. It is a myth that public display of wild animals is necessary to engage people. Many wild animals, including several whale and sea turtle species, enjoy a high degree of public interest and concern despite having never been kept in captivity and put on public display. And many children develop a keen interest in dinosaurs despite having never seen one in the wild. 9. Industries using captive exotic animals also claim that they have educational value — but what they really teach is that it is acceptable to use animals for human amusement. And since captive wild animals often exhibit abnormal behaviors due to captivity-induced stress, they fail to teach audiences about the real nature of wild animals. 10. Industries that use captive wild animals, such as the circus, frequently engage in abusive training methods, such as the use of hooks, chains, whips, electric prods, and blunt instruments. [http://www.bornfreeusa.org...]
This house believes that animal zoos should be banned

I believe the biggest benefits of zoos are educating the public on not only the animals, but how we can all contribute to conservation measures in our everyday lives. Also, people are able to see animals they might never be able to otherwise, and that brings a passion for animals to a personal level — especially if they have an experience with an animal. You can see it in a child’s eyes when they light up at a roaring lion or a hooting siamang.Arguments:1. By bringing people and animals together, zoos educate the public and foster an appreciation of the animals. This exposure and education motivates people to protect the animals.Beyond the positive impact zoos try to have on animals, they often affect the people visiting as well. Zoos don’t just entertain, they also aim to educate. With a variety of programs geared toward children and adults, zoos teach people about the needs of animals and the importance of conservation. And if people get excited enough, the thinking goes that they’ll be more inclined to donate money to conservation efforts.2. Many zoos also have breeding programs for endangered species. In the wild, these individuals might have trouble finding mates and breeding.Whereas zoos previously captured most of their specimens directly from the wild, they now get many animals through captive breeding programs and other zoos. Some breeding programs also help to restore threatened species. After 10 years of working to strengthen the population numbers of the endangered California condor, a type of vulture, the Los Angeles and San Diego zoos were able to rebuild a population of fewer than two dozen birds to around 170 birds [source: Encarta].Successful breeding programs brought the Pere David's deer back from extinction. Though this Asian deer ceased to exist in the wild, Chinese and European zoo programs enabled four of the deer to be released back into the wild in 1985, where they're now self-sustaining [source: Encarta].http://animal.discovery.com...
This house believes that animal zoos should be banned

Since we would think it cruel if someone were to cage us, it stands to reason that we should not do it to others, even animals and birds. Left in the wild a bird does all sorts of things; when kept in the cage, it just sits there. Granted that birds are beautiful to look at, we cannot observe the bird at its best when it is caged. To watch the bird at its best we should go to its habitat. A simulated habit or modern zoo may better than a simple cage or old zoo but "better" is still not a valid enough reason to claim a life. What I mean is remove a nature course of another life or to remove an animal from it's home habitat and hold it captive and it's actions restricted. Even if doing all these acts against nature are in the name of education or the action based in good intentions. I don't think either side disagrees with the other side's ideals and points but it is more of a question of the amount of moral compromise and freedom sacrificed in the name of science. I invite you to try to convince me and other like minded individuals that it is OK to confine and change an entire life of another being for any reason. Only by talking, listening and debating together can we reach the real truth and benefit.
Should we have to pay for our waste to be dealt with

I agree, everyone should have access to recycling, however there are many places that do not, far more than do in my honest opinion. Places like small towns/cities as well as many suburban areas and any place with low population. If you really do live in big cities and such than paying some money to throw away your trash will most likely be irrelevant to you. You also said in your argument that most waste foods can be recycled. That is correct when speaking of most foods that you'd find in an average household. I however, specifically said "Junk food" as in gum and chocolate bars and such. Foods that aren't bio-degradable. I do agree that there needs to be some form of regulation on preventing loads of trash from accumulating, however I do not feel that forcing people to pay money will in any way solve the problem. I think that money is becoming too much of a requirement for daily life, and making even more things that you basically cannot go without require money will only make matters worse, not better.
Should we have to pay for our waste to be dealt with

Everyone should have easy access to recycling, it is a big priority in the modern world for people to recycle. Diapers and junk foods can be dealt with in many different ways like re-useable diapers that can be washed. There is currently not a way to easily dispose of waste food but people should really throw out as little food as posible in the first place. I would also like to add that quite a lot of waste food can be composted and bread can be fed to wildlife so there are plenty of ways to minimize the amount of food waste that you throw out. If people do not have access to recycling facilities they are either not in a place that collects rubbish or they should not be charged.
Should we have to pay for our waste to be dealt with

The problem is not with people throwing away an over-abundant amount of trash, but rather the inefficient way that trash is exposed of afterward. If you really think that putting everyone's trash onto a a specific piece of land is healthy for the environment in any way what-so-ever than you're completely mistaken. There are many things than cannot be recycled that are still thrown away that will highly damage the environment such as diapers or certain junk foods. Let's also not forget that not everyone has access to recycling facilities or anything that has to do with recycling in general, making extremely unfair to punish someone for not using something they don't even have access too.
Should we have to pay for our waste to be dealt with

obviously we should have to pay for our waste to be dealt with. i know it seems harsh but at the moment when we put out rubbish we do not completely think about where it is going. by paying for our waste to be landfilled we are encouraged to recycle more. i'm not saying we should pay too much but possibly a certain amount of waste should be allowed to be thrown out and any excess should be payed for with a small fine.i believe that by letting the public throw away as much waste as they please it makes them lazy and careless, forgetting about the enviroment. even bio-degradable items chucked out will not rot down. because they are suashed in with all the other rubbish the air cannot do what it needs to break the items down. Landfill completely kills the enviroment and by creating a small fine for waste it would make people more aware of the impact they are having on the enviroment by throwing so much away and will start to recycle more.this will make a huge difference to the enviroment.
Homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.

i'm probably not the argument person you'd expect as i have more nuances. i think my locality, my state should allow it. that doesn't mean other states should have to, as it's not a fundamental right like not being persecuted because of race. when the country was founded, nearly every state had antisodomy laws. surely, if that was allowed, it was probably constitutional. if that's allowed, how would it be that gay marriage which would result in sodomy be such that the public should vote for its existance? the only way it'd happen is if they voted for it. (i suppose if society changes tos much pastors would just allow it who weren't against it, and the citizens wouln't have to vote to allow it. i'm only against voting for it if you're morally against it such that youw ouldn't vote for it, but that doens't mean i think you should ban it, and so you'd be okay as you're not doing anything wrong by not banning) homosexuality i agree is natural phenomenon. but, there's really no denying it's unnatural, it's a deviation from the way things are. now, i don't agree, but i think it's reasonable for people to think it's a sin to engage in sodomy etc. but for others, you shouldn't vote for things that you think will result in sins, because you're encouraging it etc. i ultimately think that if you have a genetic problem, it's not that big of a deal sin wise, and my state should allow it. but it's understanding that the genetic problem should not be encouraged, most like on sin grounds, as i've said, but perhaps on what one would think is natural law. the latter argument i concede is weak. gayness is not against the natural law as it's natural, but it is a deviation.