BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death of an animal after an attack.

Okay, so I'm not too sure about other countries but here in Australia there seems to be a belief that if you are attacked by a wild animal, trackers will attempt to hunt the animal down and terminate it. For example; if you enter the ocean and the slight chance you get attacked by a shark - the shark will be killed. Or if you enter Fraser Island (An island famous for wild dingoes) and perhaps get attacked or harassed by a wild dingo, that dingo will get tracked down and killed. Personally, i think this is a disgusting way of fixing this solution. People know the risks of these attacks before they enter the ocean or another animal's habitat so why is it okay for the animal to die, when the tourist has trespassed? If you enter a Lion's habitat at a zoo and get attacked, its your fault. But why are the rules changed when it comes to the wild? I just wanted to know everybody elses thoughts?
Shere Khan(Jungle Book) would beat Scar(Lion King)

Greetings! Since it seems that my opponent is fairly new to debate. org I will start off with a little TK (Team knowledge) You have done a good job so far at pointing out some of my mistakes, that is what a good part of debating is. It is completely valid for anyone to make irrelevant arguments, it is the job of the opponent to point that out, which you have for the most part done so far. It is then my job to tell you why I think they are relevant, etc. While your right, we are debating fictional characters, it is still important to note and compare the traits to live animals are important since that's what they ARE based on. =================== Scars intelligence irrelevance =================== In the lion king, scar is only able to defeat Mufasa through a trap, and/or ambush. Later in the movie when Simba returns to Pride Rock and confronts Scar, Scar's Hyenas attack Simba but are soon dealt with when the lions come in, leaving Simba and Scar to themselves. It is barely a fight before Simba has scar pinned down, and literally begging for mercy. 0:00 - 0.32 shows the two before the hyenas and lions interefere. Simba is over the ledge about to fall, and Scar unintentionally allows Simba to get back up (a huge and demonstrating move). Simba then has him pinned until the others interfere. If you skip to 1:54 you will see Simba charge Scar, and Scar will run. Next, Simba has Scar backed up to the ledge, when (as i will grant you) scars wits gets him a surprise blow on Simba, he even lands embers into Simba's eyes. If you watch until 3:50 you will see that, eventhough Scar may be a smart strategist, his knowledge of physical fighting is lacking to much. He charges Simba who is on the ground at this point, (Scar SHOULD obviously have a huge advantage) but makes a critical mistake and is catipulted over the ledge by Simba. Scar loses a fight that he should win against a fellow lion, let's make note that Shere Khan is a more threatening opponent to Scar than Simba is due to physical dominance and a better fighting ability. My video demonstrates that Scar's wits and strategies are not enough to win a 1 on 1 fight against Simba, let alone Shere Khan.
Shere Khan(Jungle Book) would beat Scar(Lion King)

A thanks to may opponent, I enjoy civilized debate and demeanor, such as my opponent has shown, so thank you. Now I will move into my counter argument. Perhaps I was unclear in my resolution or in my first argument. While a tiger may be much more physically imposing, and while my opponents debate puts actual facts behind the animals in context, I proposed a debate between these fictional characters, meaning the gain the advantages and weaknesses they do in the movies, thus to apply "brilliant strategist" would be wrong to apply to a real life lion, Scar fits into this perfectly because Scar demonstrates these characteristics in the movie. I am going off of the assumption that the various character traits that these characters, for that is what they are fictional characters and not real life animals, are present in this debate, thus I will cross apply my previous stated arguments. I maintain that by applying the various traits these characters possess, it appears clear that Scar dominates SK in almost every way. I will concede that SK is physically stronger, thus validating my opponents argument, but am maintaining that my arguments are still prevalent in resolving today's debate. To some up a some what confusing and jumbled counter argument, I maintain that these are fictional characters, thus they are not bound by logical and real life facts, and instead have human like traits, such as Scar being a brilliant strategist. Next I cross apply my previous stated arguments and reiterate that they sum up today's debate better. I will concede that in real life tiger's are stronger than lion's, and will then give SK the advantage of strength, however, when put up against the mastermind character that is Scar, SK cannot stand up. Thus while he is a tiger, SK the character does not possess as dominant of character traits as Scar, these traits elevate Scar to a level of intellectual superiority, that combined with his formidable strength allow him to out maneuver and out fight even a pure brute such as SK. In end, Scar is superior to SK and would beat SK in a fight. Once again I thank my opponent for being precise and to the point, and apologize him if I made my resolution too vague. I look forward to a counter argument.
Shere Khan(Jungle Book) would beat Scar(Lion King)

Greetings! I hope for a good debate, good luck to my opponent! Let's first recognize that most of my opponents first round is irrelevant. Intelligence must be explained how it would benefit him in a 1 on 1 fight with Shere-Khan (here on our I will refer to him as SK) The debate is also not who is more evil, a better villian, etc. It's who would win in a fight as you can see by the resolution. Now i will more onto my arguments. I will also make notice here that because these are fictional characters, arguments will mainly be from tigers in general, since the characteristics are still the same. Weight and Strength advantage: Tigers are known as the largest cats in the world. This is a fact. Tigers can get up to 700 lbs while lions typically max at 550. This is a 150 lb difference. Tigers are also known to be more muscular. Cunning: Not only do tigers have the weight and strength advantage, but they are more agile, swift and are known for having better eye coordination. Better fighters by Nature: The Tiger hunts and lives alone, they also hunt bigger pray. They are marked with stripes which help camoflouge to increase stealth. Lions live and hunt in "Prides" or groups. If they are used to this they wouldn't stand a chance when thrown into a 1 on 1 fight. I will leave this for now. Good luck to my opponent!
Shere Khan(Jungle Book) would beat Scar(Lion King)

Yes, I do have quite a bit of free time, but I was pondering this question, is Shere Khan better than Scar? I had to say no, he is not. I present these values for the debate: Villainy, intent, power. Villainy: Scar is a much stronger villain, while Shere-Khan is feared across the plains, Scar is not, he is evil and operates right under the eyes of Mufasa, thus he is more informed and knows how to put plans into action to great effect. He is able to subtly manipulate Mufasa, the other lions, and was able to manipulate Simba to serve his master plans. He is extremely intelligent and can plan things out to a large scale, he enslaves the pride land after he drops Mufasa into the wildabeast stampede(that he created). Ultimately he is the evil genius, he is a master planner, strategist, and not afraid to do things dirty. Intent: This is pretty obvious, the intent to which villainy is put to use. Shere Khan wants to kill a little Indian boy, scar wants to enslave and control the pride land under an evil dictatorship, hmmm, I think this argument is pretty self explanatory. Power: Finally we can evaluate power. Power in my definition is more than brute strength, while strength plays a major role in fighting, your intelligence, strategic ability, reflexes, and cunning(in this case, how you put your strength to use). Shere Khan is considered to be the more physically powerful, but there ends his advantage, Scar can physically spar with Simba, and very well could have won, but it is Disney. Scar as I have previously stated, is much more cunning, intelligent, tactical, and has the strength to match Shere Khan.
Many Vulnerable children in state care turn to crime

I will have to disagree with you. Many examples have shown that the lack of care with this children have let then vulnerable to crime. Lots of stories have been published by Cosmopolitan showing that lots of state care girls turn into prostitution and drug dealing to gain control over their lives, specially chronic runaways. I do believe that being in state care let this kids more vulnerable to crime as they lack proper attention to their attitudes and often turn to crime to gain control over their lives.
The United States is a Christian Nation

Pro has painted a picture of a United States which is as far right as one could go. But this is not true, as, in my last statement, secularism is growing. On June 26, 2015, the US legalised same sex marriage in all 50 states, excluding territory native to the American Indians. But this was the first time same sex marriage was shown support, a truly anti-Christian value. On May 17, 2004, Massachusetts legalised same sex marriage. In June 2013 the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that federal law could not treat as unequal, marriages that individual States had created as equally valid, when it overturned a key provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thus forcing federal recognition of same-sex marriage and marriage-related benefits when related to a same-sex marriage performed by a state that sanctioned such marriages. (1) If this is the case for a truly Christian nation, how could one define it as Christian? Consider abortion, a subject that many pro-life supporters take as a religious value. (2) presents a map of the United States, before the Roe vs. Wade case which eventually legalised abortion. (3) presents a map of the infamous Bible Belt, described as a utopia for extremely conservative Christians and right wing beliefs. Once again, the evidence does NOT correlate to the right wing Conservatives being extremely conservative, as only 1-2 counties where abortion is 100% illegal are actually based in the Bible Belt. The majority are open minded to the idea of abortion given the risk of the woman's health, rape or in the event of a likely damaged fetus. To sum up my argument: From a historical viewpoint, the founding fathers attempted to create a secular nation in the United States. From US currency, to the US Constitution, to the Pledge of Allegiance and even direct quotes from John Adams, the founding fathers intended 100% for a secular America. It is no doubt that the US has held a truly conservative Christian history, but recent developments in policies which have gone against true Christian beliefs highlights the progression of Americans from conservatives to moderates or even liberals. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Pro for this debate, a great learning curve for me, and I wish Pro luck in the result of this and his future debates. Vote Con! (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (3) https://www.google.com.au... (4) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... Sources from last statement: (1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org... (2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
The United States is a Christian Nation

The hate speech laws in France are matters of both civil law and criminal law. Those laws protect individuals and groups from being defamed or insulted because they belong or do not belong, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because they have a handicap. The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, or a sexual orientation, or because he or she has a handicap.......from WikWhy can the US not do this?I thank my opponent for their argument and there is a breeze of naivety that I could float on that would almost make their argument true. However, in the cold light of day a country must be judged by its actions. Trump is affiliated with a very conservative branch of Christianity. America fights with Muslim countries and Atheistic countries. Why? Trump does not care about the implications of Global Warming. Why? Christians spend their lives waiting for the end, it is endemic within their mindset and this is an attribute of Trump Voters in 2016. I have nothing against a Christian Democracy in so far as it could be worse but you have a long way to go before you become a secular France which is where democracy really exists.The Bible is America's Constitution, God has made man in his Likeness and his Laws shall reign supreme over us. This is the crutch that keeps the Absurdities of Inequality and Waste with the US sustainable. The Christian soldiers of the US lead the vanguard against an invisible enemy that now is Muslim extremism, but which might easily morph into secular rationalism tomorrow. Try taking guns off these Christians, try stopping the production of armaments in US factories. Why would a secular society do these things in the name of God. They wouldn't. Obama used more Christian euphemisms than I can possibly recall and it was regarded as normal."My faith is a great source of comfort to me. I've said before that my faith has grown as President. This office tends to make a person pray more; and as President Lincoln once said, 'I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go.'" ObamaAt least now we know who is 'pulling the strings'.
The United States is a Christian Nation

I will take this on with relish. This will not be the debate to end all debates so why pretend that it is. Let's just kick the idea around a bit and you see if a young person is able for an old debate veteran like myself.I will prove that America has just elected a Christian President. That's after having a pseudo-christian leader before him. How many American presidents were not Christian. Your homework for today.Christianity is embedded in every facet of American life and it has always been so, ie its currency, its constitution. etc etc. You just elected a President who stated that he would close his doors to Muslims. How does that pan out?Your country tolerates Christian nonsense throughout its land and supports same, look at the Mormons for example. There are deep historical factors at play in your question and the only way that you will gain ground in this debate is to show that America is not a Christian Nation, good luck with that. America is not the same as France when it comes to religion and it's ambiguities are everywhere for all to see. Just Give up before you start. Even your red-neck hunting and shooting nationalists are predominately republican bible belt die hards. ps:from wik 'No president thus far has been openly an atheist.' No Jews and no Muslims Q.E.D. (No woman either, how Christian do you want to be) Check this against France
The United States is a Christian Nation

The United States: is it a Christian nation? I would like to believe that this is not the case, and historically, there is a vast vein of evidence that proves that the United States was, from the very beginning founded on Secular beliefs. Sorry for re-doing this debate, trolls who accept the debate, make one/no argument and then fail to respond irritate my debating experiences. Please only accept if you will make it through all 4 rounds. Round 1 is acceptance/laying down what Pro will prove. Round 2 are arguments made. Round 3 is rebuttals. Round 4 are final rebuttals and a summary of points made.
Stephen King is profane and shouldn't be allowed in school libraries

So your arguing that because of irresponsible parents, Stephen King should be banned? That would punish people who would otherwise be reading these novels as age appropriate entertainment. The books don't need to be banned, people need to step up and be responsible. On another note, plenty of elementary school kids know a fair amount of profanity from television or by just listening to their parents or siblings, without reading a single word of profanity in so much as a short story. Anyone in elementary school who reads a King novel would lose interest after reading a paragraph (unless they have a fairly advanced reading level).
Stephen King is profane and shouldn't be allowed in school libraries

I agree, they are well written. But I am in a high school that also has a middle and elementary school that use the same library. It is not good if a young kid or even a middle school kid picking one up and either reading it or just looking at his writting is not good for that kid. It is ok for someone who understands Stephen King and his writing to read it, but they can get it at a store or public library. I have seen a 7 yea old walking abround with carrie, it saddened me that her parent's allow her to read it. I asked her and her and her mother said if it is in the school library it must b ok for her to read, obviously her mother has never read Stephen King. It is times like this that show that someone, especially a young kid will pick up any book and read it even if it is bad for their minds. I don't think young kids should be exposed to this kind of book.
Stephen King is profane and shouldn't be allowed in school libraries

The fact that you go to a christian school is irrelevant to the argument that Stephen King should be banned in schools. If anything, it should be more difficult to get inappropriate books into the school library. And you would think, if the library is K-12, it should be separated into age appropriate sections. There is also no way you can know what they're exposed outside of school, so arguing that they "aren't as exposed to profanity through siblings, friends, older students, etc." because they're in a christian school is unlikely to be accurate. Also, depending on which book you read, it could contain more profanity than another one. You appear to be basing your argument off of a single book. Your last argument made this debate overtly personal, when it started off fairly impersonal.
Stephen King is profane and shouldn't be allowed in school libraries

That's the thing, I go to a christian school. So they aren't as exposed to profanity throuh siblings, friends, older students, etc. And at my is a college preparatory school, so young kids are expected to read far above other schools, especially in our state. So mabey it is just my school I have to worry about. Anyway, kids old enough that want to read King can go buy it at a store or check it out at a public library, in a place were young kids are tempted to not even look at it.
Resolved: People Should Support the Boycott, Divestment and Sactions Movement (BDS)

This debate will be over the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement better known as BDS. The Pro will argue in favor of BDS, and the Con shall argue against BDS.DEBATE STRUCTURE1. Acceptance, No Arguments2. Opening statements (no rebuttals)3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals5. Final Rebuttals and closing arguments RULES1. The burden of proof is shared2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss3. No images or videos are permitted. Links to videos or Images may be used as sources, but the media itself may not be posted in the debate.4. The character limit is 10,0005. All arguments must be made in the debate. Any arguments that are mentioned in the comments should be ignored. If there are technical difficulties, sources may be posted in the comments.6. No Kritiks7. No Semantics8. No Trolling9. All sources must be accessible online and all links must be posted to the debate.10. Violations of any of these rules should be noted by voters in their scores for conduct.
Compulsory Voting

With voter turnout at all-time lows, I believe that the government should enact what several other countries around the world have already done, Compulsory Voting. I think voting should be mandatory, or you face a fine. This system was implemented in Australia fairly recently and voter turnout doubled. In order for our government to be truly representative, we should have heard the opinion of more than 30% of the population. I don't think we can call ourselves a democracy when a candidate wins by a million votes, but 100 million people didn't cast theirs. As for complications, we can make exceptions so that no one is fined unjustly. Polls are open for twelve hours on most occassions and early, satellite, and absentee voting are easier than ever. Some would argue that it is just as much a right to not vote as it is to vote. This is true. However, there is an abstain box (where there isn't we would make one), which would allow those who do not want to cast either way to avoid the fine. Compulsory voting would ensure that the democratic spirit is invigorated. Something America in particular deperately needs.
Compulsory Voting

To bring this to the front, a tax break simply won't work because 1/3 of Americans don't even pay taxes. A fine would hurt the poor more than the rich and the poor are the ones more likely to miss an election if their car breaks down if they even have one. Again I ask, what's the problem with not being elected by the majority of Americans? I'm not saying the majority that voted. I'm saying the majority of American citizens. Even in Australia they don't have all the people show up to vote, if the standard is to win the majority, it won't always happen in Australia either. "Every win in every election is essentially illegitimate." Lets define illegitimate. From http://www.m-w.com... ; "2:ï¿½not rightly deduced or inferred :ï¿½illogical3:ï¿½departing from the regular :ï¿½erratic4 a:ï¿½not sanctioned by law :ï¿½illegal b:ï¿½not authorized by good usage cof a taxon :ï¿½published but not in accordance with the rules of the relevant international code." Take your pick, none of them fit. "Should we require poll testing" ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! "The fact is, qualifying people's votes in any way is unconstitutional and illegal." ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! "who is to say the valid opinion of the true majority of Americans would somehow be the 'wrong' one?" ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! If you have a valid opinion, vote. "Maybe the government should just protect us all from ourselves and choose who is going to be president themselves." ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! "Once at the polling station, these people would either abstain if they had no viable opinion or cast their vote for whatever reason they decide." How do you know that they would abstain if they had no viable opinion? "Its presumptuous to think that your reasons for voting are any more important than theirs." Really? If they are only going to avoid a fine and I'm going to make a real change in our government, my reason for voting is better than theirs. "I don't have any reason to believe their would be some new bureaucracy formed." How would you implement the tax break or fine without a new agency? "People who truly don't have an opinion could abstain." But they would still have to drive to the polling place, waste their time and gas to drive there. "Does that mean she shouldn't be allowed to vote?" Oh here's a familiar answer. (copy + paste) ARE WE STOPPING ANYONE FROM VOTING??? NO! "Whether you personally see it that way or not, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and several Supreme Court decisions do." Did the supreme court say that we should have compulsory voting? No I didn't think so. "So, your position stands as unconstitutional and illegal." LOL. I'm so sorry, I just can't stop laughing.