BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
why should dog have to be mico chipped

--------------- Rebuttal --------------- My opponent makes the point that if a dog has a good owner then they should not want to run away. Not only is this not a valid enough point to prevent micro chipping dogs, but it is highly unreasonable. Simply because an someone is a good owner or master to their dog is not going to stop a dog from running away. Many, many dogs run away every year, it is unreasonable to believe that every dog had a bad owner. Animals simply crave being free. Also quite often a dog will not even know that they are running away. As animals are not sentient they are unable to decide between right and wrong, they don't know that running away is wrong so there is nothing a "good owner" could do to prevent it in the realm of simply being a good owner. Also you bring up the point of money. "not everybody can afford to have a dog, food, insurace, etc" If someone is unable to afford to have a dog then why should they be worried about having a dog micro chipped. Thus, this is an invalid point. Furthermore, it is highly reasonable for all dogs to be micro chipped. Not only do many dogs go missing every year, but many dogs are either stolen or never returned when they are found. If all dogs were micro chipped then not only would dogs that have gone missing be able to be found, but also those people that are stealing dogs will be caught and prosecuted. Dogs need to be micro chipped.
Patriotism is a positive force to have in society.

It has been my pleasure to participate in defense of patriotism and I look forward to many future debates with InsterNameHere and all the other honorable debaters on this page. For now though, I will finish this topic. A bit of misinformation from my opponents last post needs to be cleared up. He wrote "My opponent also claims patriotism to be a selfless act, using the example of Dutch Soldiers fighting against the Nazis. However, my opponent fails to address the fact that the atrocities committed by the Nazis were the result of extreme patriotism and nationalism towards the German "Aryan" race" but that could not be further from the truth. I very clearly addressed this above by explaining there are a number of evil acts committed where a group is trying to globalize the world, make others conform and then mask this ego trip as an act of patriotism. That is not true patriotism. Nowhere in the definition above that my opponent posted at the start of this debate did it say anything about taking over other communities and that's because those acts are not patriotism. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) That is the act of extremists, as my opponent even admitted a few lines later by saying "in its most extreme form". Just as we have to be sure to keep religion in the middle east and extremists who hide behind the religion. I find it essential that we keep a clear distinction between those who love their country and wish those well within its boarded versus those extremists who wish harm others. Patriotism, by definition, is love of one's country and the defense of one's country. The term patriotism says noting about being the aggressor or taking over others but rather the defense of one's country when outer forces wish to inflict harm or change their way of life. My opponent's entire contention is that patriotism turns into extremism but he fails to make such a direct connection. Most would agree that people have the right to both love and defend their family and home. People would also agree that its wrong to attack another's family and home. But having the right to defend one's home is not the reason burglars commit crimes and break in to other's homes. The connection is simply not there and while some may work hard to make these two connect in a distant, more extreme way, it is nothing more than an exception to the rule rather than true practice of what makes each country a wonderful and unique place; patriotism. Thank you for a wonderful debate my friend and I hope all who read these posts enjoy the wonderful points on both sides.
Patriotism is a positive force to have in society.

Thank you. Those are very intriguing arguments. :) This should be interesting... First off, my opponent claims that if people are living together as one they'll lose their sense of identity. This rarely seems to be a problem in multi-cultural countries such as Canada. In fact, Canada actually tries to promote their multi-cultural identity. The Canadian Multi-cultural Act is a good example of this. http://www.solon.org... Each cultural group is able to freely express themselves. My opponent also claims patriotism to be a selfless act, using the example of Dutch Soldiers fighting against the Nazis. However, my opponent fails to address the fact that the atrocities committed by the Nazis were the result of extreme patriotism and nationalism towards the German "Aryan" race. Without this patriotism and nationalism the Dutch or the Jews or anybody else would have not made these sacrifices. There would have been no need to. The Nazis were expanding to make a German empire. This is patriotism in its most extreme form. Not to mention, this sense of national pride can lead to brutal ideologies such as fascism(http://en.wikipedia.org...). Lastly, I acknowledge that soldiers are often captured in war as my opponent claims. However, many of these wars are often caused by extreme patriotism. For example, one could argue that the current wars in The Middle East are a result of patriotism. Both sides wish to protect their countries. The Middle Eastern Countries want less western influence, being proud of the way things are done in their countries while the US may want to expand their influence and remain a prosperous nation to keep the people patriotic. Neither side would want captured soldiers to reveal information as that could result in dominance by one group over another which could lead to further nationalism and more complications. I look forward to my opponent's closing statements and I wish good luck to both of us! I also want to thank my opponent for this interesting debate. Cheers!
Patriotism is a positive force to have in society.

If people are "living together as one" as my opponent would like to see happen, then the individual loses their identity of self. Therefore we would not see people being more understanding of the wonderful diverse cultures around the world but rather a more aggressive and larger group forcing the minority to be in uniform with the majority. Patriotism is an extremely selfless act. The isolated instances listed above by my opponent were not committed out of patriotism but rather for the expansion of one's own ego and wealth. Patriotism, on the other hand, is giving of one's self to better their country and the lives for those in their country. I can think of no better example of this than the Dutch solders who gave their lives in 1940 to defend their homeland from the Nazi armies. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Even though they were outnumbered and the Nazi army invaded their land, they agreed the cost of their lives was a small price to pay in sustaining their culture for future generations and to avoid the global uniformity of the Nazi party. I do agree it would be nice to live in such a world where evil did not exist, but that is not reality and it would be naive to believe such fallacy. There will always be extremists wishing to do harm to others and unless people have a common passion, as these Dutch shoulders did in the love of their country, the extremists will prevail. But just because some groups mask their evil with a blanket of patriotism does not mean, as my opponent argues, that all patriotic acts are evil. Quite the contrary, only a very few number of acts with such as false mask are actually evil. The vast majority of acts one does to save, protect or better their country are not done with malice intent. Soldiers who are captured in times of war have every chance to give their captors privileged information to save themselves rather than their country. Time and time again we see soldiers be submitted to horrific torture and never disclose information to harm those in their countrymen. Acts such as these show the pride and honor that goes into having love for ones country. Would you want to live in a place where my army put self interest over the country's? I would surely not. I would rather live in a place, as mentioned above, where the Dutch citizens bonded together in protecting their way of life against the global uniformity of others.
Patriotism is a positive force to have in society.

My opponent states that people take pride in their immediate environment. In some cases this could be true, but what about the destruction of these environments and of the locals in order to promote the culture of the new group moving in? This is one of many negative aspects of patriotism. Others can move into an area and destroy the local's way of life. A few examples include the Canadian Residential School system(http://en.wikipedia.org...), the relocation of natives in the United States(http://en.wikipedia.org...), and even modern Zionism calling for the expansion into Palestinian territory(http://en.wikipedia.org...). These have all been negative on the groups affected. Secondly, my opponent argues that because there are different cultures around the world that they should not be together in a global community. However, bringing everybody would be beneficial. If people could learn to live together as one perhaps they could learn to better understand each other's cultural practices. There are many factors contributing to racism with ignorance being one of them. http://carlie1230.tripod.com... Lastly, my opponent argues that if there was a global community years ago that there would be less culture. This can also be inaccurate in many ways. For example, the Ancient Greeks were very innovative in many areas. As people from other civilizations began exploring, eventually ending up in Greece they were able to pick up many of these ideas. Arabs were influenced by Greek science, Romans were influenced by Greek theology and philosophy. Even today in the modern world we still have influences from Greek philosophy affecting our daily lives. These advances were all about civilizations sharing different ideas with each other. If everybody was ultra-patriotic and hated everybody else, refusing to cooperate and do business with each other, it's likely that much of these ideas would have not spread.
Patriotism is a positive force to have in society.

The first thing that caught my attention was when my opponent said "people moving in wouldn't be native citizens of the area so wouldn't it be silly to be proud of a nation that you don't actually belong to?" and I cannot let this go unnoticed. People take pride in their most immediate environment and I find nothing silly about that. It's honorable to take pride in one's local community. While you should not show disrespect to foreign lands, a community thousands of miles away has no direct relation on your culture or way of life. To argue that we are a global community is not as correct as some may think. It is true that we all share this wonderful planet earth, but that is nearly all we have in common. There are many different cultures across this great planet with many different beliefs. As long as these countries do not harm others, then they should be praised for their unique way of bonding and living and succeeding together. There should not be pressure that everyone change to a 'global' way of life or 'global' way of doing things. Rather, our world is great because there are so many diverse beliefs that people can choose to learn from and experience. If a global community took place years ago, we would've miss out on so much culture and history and we would have too much uniformity. We shouldn't live in a place where Australia influenced Mexico and India had to worry about Brazil's interpretation before advancing their culture. Again, it is the pride in one's country that helps that culture to advance and survive. This is something to be proud of and a matter of survival. Not every single person in every country is going to have the same belief as the others, but the greatest common ground two citizens can find is love in one's country and that bond can translate into growth and success of not only the country and culture, but the individual as well.
Patriotism is a positive force to have in society.

Now to begin. .. My opponent mentions that while patriotism can be a good thing, he also talks about negative aspects of it. Patriotism can lead to unity between groups of people with a similar background within a country. Sometimes these bonds can become too strong that others are left out and racism/discrimination can occur. This, however, is aside from the main point I would like to bring up in this round. Patriotism can be a negative force in other ways. One thing to consider is that we're all human. In reality, nobody is superior over anybody else as patriotism can sometimes teach. We are a global community and should be treated as such. Second factor to consider is that colonialism. There are many countries that were created as a result of settling in somebody else's land. Technically these people moving in wouldn't be native citizens of the area so wouldn't it be silly to be proud of a nation that you don't actually belong to? Thirdly, a person doesn't actually choose where they're born. They're born wherever their parents happen to be at the time. For example, if you're a German who is born and raised in a place like Japan it's not actually your country to be proud of. Patriotism is defined as being proud and loyal to one's own country, something that would be difficult for a German living in Japan. Now to my opponent. ..
Patriotism is a positive force to have in society.

Patriotism is the love for one's country. It is a positive action when people can express their love. It is also positive when people take pride in what they love. Those who take pride in their family, neighbor, environment, country, etc tend to take better care of such things and that is a benefit to all those involved. Without this pride for one's country, you run the risk of a disheveled structure of society. There are of course extremes to any issue and one can take patriotism too far and try to twist it around to justify evils in the world, but those rare exceptions are not what is being discussed here. At hand, the focus is on how one's love and pride for something, such as one's country, helps keep structure and a common goal of greatness for self and neighbor.
nights where the best anchint warrior

oh yes!i can.here i go..........let me change the defination of best warrior .best warrior = the warrior who has the deadliest weapon.nights are not the best ancient warrior because they are mere horsemen. ancient chinese warriors used gun powder which is 100 times more deadly than mere bow and arrow and axe.ancient indian warrior used elephant in battle which could easily crush a horseman.so nights did not have deadliest weapon of their time.conclusion: nights are not best ancient warrior
nights where the best anchint warrior

first definationsbest warrior: the warrior who followed the rules of the war laid down by codes of the war.knights: they were an ancient warrior clan.knights were the best warrior compared with other ancient warriors because they follow a code of war called chivalry which no other ancient warrior follows.their chivalric code was:"Protect the weak, defenseless, helpless, and fight for the general welfare of all."knights follow these codes throughout their course of knighthood. no other warrior clan had such a noble code.source:http://en.wikipedia.org...
It would be morally acceptable to eat the elderly

My opponent has not contested any of the framework. "Just because someone has died or is close to death it doesn't mean it is morally acceptable to consume their body." Let us review the moral framework; it states that all actions are morally acceptable. Eating the body of the elderly or recently deceased is an action Therefore it is morally acceptable. " They are/were people just like us and had souls and lives and a family." Irrelevent. "We have enough food and meat on this planet to keep us healthy, without consuming human beings." Irrelevent and people taste good. I didn't think I'd actually get someone that quickly. This was mainly an experiment to see if newer members read the framework.
It would be morally acceptable to eat the elderly

Framework The moral framework we will be using will be Thad-the-rad-ism which states that all actions are morally acceptable. If you accept this debate, you accept this moral framework. The elderly are defined as human beings over the age of 65 Acceptable - meets the minimum requirements First round is for acceptence. If you want to add something to the framework pm me. Please note; I am not saying we should only eat the elderly, just that it is morally acceptable.
ww11-Hitler

I apologize for the misconception regarding gender. I will start be refuting my opponents argument and then I will build upon my previous argument. Then I will have final focus on my argument. My opponent claims that Hitler was one of the most famous leaders, and that he convinced people to commit murder, and must therefore be a good leader. This is illogical. Fame does not make you a good leader. Furthermore I would contend that many leaders have convinced their people to commit murder. In all honesty convincing humans to kill en masse, as history will show, isn't nearly as difficult as one might think. There are multiple cases throughout history of weak leaders convincing the people to kill. My opponent goes on to claim that Hitler held a great deal of power. That is true. He was the military dictator of the powerhouse that was Nazi Germany. Holding power does not make you a good leader. Exercising power in an effective manner makes you a good leader. When Hitler left his country weakened and hated by the world. Hitler left Germany in a weakened state. Hitler lost the war. Therefore, he was not a good leader. My opponent also claims that because Hitler left his mar on the world that he was a good leader. This also doesn't make sense. Plenty of people have greatly affected history but this neither makes them bad, nor good. It only makes them memorable. It makes them important to history. Sometimes the worst leaders are the ones that leave the biggest marks in history. My points regarding Hitler military failures still stand. My opponent has failed to refute any of my contentions. I urge strongly that you vote in the negative. I await my opponents response eagerly.
ww11-Hitler

First of i am female not male , i will now begin my argument Even though Hitler lost the war , he was one of the most famous leaders to stand out. Convincing somebody to murder takes incredible power and not to feel anything about it. Not only was he a great public speaker i do believe he was a good leader because he had so much power behind him. Almost everything is successful with power and that's why Hitler was so successful. Even though Germany lost the war and my county won, his actions even now have a long term effect on people. Even though that statements may seem harsh , he must have been a bloody good leader to still have actions effecting things nearly a century on........
ww11-Hitler

Not to be offensive, but it's WWII (roman numerals being the capital letter i) not WW11 (implying world war eleven). I thank my opponent for his time and thank him for accepting my definitions. I will begin by defining my argument via my contentions A) Morally, he was a terrible man. B) A convincing public speaker does not a great leader make. C) Although he made a powerful Army, he was a terrible tactician. D) He is given undue credit to the successes of Germany during WWII E) He lost the war. First I will address his morality. Murder is viewed negatively by the vast majority of people, and by the vast majority of religions (moral creeds). Hitler committed mass murder and genocide without remorse. Clearly he was very undesirable in the moral sense. Second I contend that his ability to make public speeches and sway the emotions of his people, did not make him a good leader. Just because people will do what you tell them does not mean that you are fit to lead. If you drive your country to defeat at the hands of its enemies, you are not a good leader. Third I contend that although Germany did experience rapid industrialization under his lead, this did not mean that he was a good leader because he mismanaged it so poorly. He is notorious for the various military disasters that he effected during his campaigns in WWII. Including the famous failure at Dunkirk, the massive failure of Operation Barbarossa, and his poor defense against the D-Day invasions. This brings me to my next two contentions. Fourth Hitler is given much undue credit regarding the successes of Nazi Germany during and before WWII. The economic growth Germany experienced was not all because Hitler was a master of economic development, and the early victories Germany enjoyed during the war were not all entirely due to his military planning. Military minds such as Erwin Rommel are much to thank for this. Fifth And finally, Hitler lost the war. Hitler started the war, and under his command he lost the war. Therefore, Hitler was a failure as a leader. I believe I have set up a more than adequate argument and I await my opponents response eagerly.
There is No God

Yes you can disprove that a god exists, because it is physically impossible for a god to exist. What did he exist on before he created the universe? If he can judge, see, hear, think, control, among many other human-like qualities, and is even in the image of man, then he must be a living thing. If all living things die, then how is he immortal? How does he hear prayers if he's not on earth, and doesn't have ears, which would make him a living thing? How does he have the time to listen to prayers, judge people, and maintain order all at once?
I'm fat.

I accept. Many thanks to Pro for instigating this debate :) BoP is on Pro. Since this is a one rounded debate, and he has not proved that he is, like the debate says, fat, or that he is, like the first round says, self-conscious, he has lost the debate. Arguments go to me. Pro is obviously either fishing for compliments, or trying to debate a topic he will win in. Therefore, conduct should go to me. Spelling and grammar, tied. Sources, neither of us have any. Tied.
Pick your own debate 3!

In accordance with Pro's conditions, here are four resolutions in three categories 1. Entertainment: The anime "Kamichu!" is a better exposition of the teen goddess theme than the anime "The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumia." I am PRO. Kamichu! is summarized here http://en.wikipedia.org...! Haruhi at http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Entertainment: The anime "Initial D" is as much about the role of passion in life as it is about auto racing. I am Pro. "Initial D" is summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Society: The concept of a "water footprint" is an important one that should be reflected positively in how we live." I am Con. Among advocates are waterfootprint.org http://www.waterfootprint.org... which also defines the concept. 4. Politics: "The Stimulus Plan was bad legislation." I am Pro. For the purposes of this debate, "bad legislation" is defined as "legislation not efficient or effective in accomplishing its stated purpose." Have at it!
Pick your own debate 3!

1. Submit at least 4 resolutions of at least 3 different categories (see the forum). Include your position for each resolution. 2. In R2, I will respond with my choice. If I am PRO, I will respond with only my choice. My opponent will then use his R2 to acknowledge my choice and invite me to begin. Debating will begin with me in R3 and end with my opponent in R5. If I am CON, I will respond with only my choice and invite my opponent to begin. Debating will begin with my opponent in R2 and will end in R5. My opponent will not post in his last round and will instead thank the audience and myself for the debate. BEGIN!