BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Zoos do more harm than good.

"The major problem with zoos is they put the entertainment value at a higher priority than the welfare or well-being of the animals," said Elliot Katz, president of In Defense of Animals, how can one, be excepted for the zoos to Fulfill their plans for the animals when they care more about the entertainment then the actual species, what my opponent is trying to say explain (correct me if i am wrong) but that there are Labs and reserves where these animals are kept and then bread to make the breed survive.. We are brought up in a culture that says zoos are fun, but we should really be angry that these animals are taken out of their natural habitat so that people can gawk at them," she said. "This is done for profit, not education, and it's frustrating that the public doesn't get that. People can learn about wild animals by watching the excellent documentaries available on Discovery, Animal Planet and 'Wild Kingdom.' " Zoos do not ware awareness as 50% of the people which go to zoos read the information the other 50 look at the animals and walk by. i fail to recognize the continuance of this debate as my opponent has made the mistake of confusing a Zoo for a Lab or REserves. I thank you for the very interesting Debate and i apologize for the brief round God Bless http://fishwars.blogspot.com...
Facism or Anarchy

Despite the title, this IS a serious debate. If American society instantly devolved into either anarchy of fascism, which would be better? Rules: Label each contention made in the second speech. No new contentions after the second speech. Make sure to say which contention you are rebutting in the third and fourth speeches. Evidence can be brought in in the second and third speeches only. While facts should be brought in, as anarchy and fascism are both philosophies this will be a morals debate as well. Speeches: 1st: Rules/Acceptance 2nd: Constructive 3rd: Rebuttal 4th: Rebuttal/ Final Points (No new evidence) I, the Pro, will be the Anarchist.
Mormons are Christians

RebuttalAs Pro did not refute any of my previous contentions I will offer a brief rebuttal to his sole contention:Look up the definition of Christian or Christianity. Christianity: the Christian religion, including the Catholic, Protestant, and Eastern Orthodox churches. [1]Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants all believe in the Trinity. While they may disagree on certain specific items (a completely different debate) they are in conformance with certain basic principles. Mormons are not Catholics, Orthodox or Protestants. Catholics believe they are the Barque of Peter on the ocean. The Orthodox stand at the other end of the boat and believe they are the boat. The protestants believe the boat had a lot of barnacles, but that they cleaned it off. Mormons said that the boat sank and that God built a new one.Christian: a member of a Christian Church or denomination [2]As we have seen above in Round 2, the Mormon Church is not a Christian Church because they do not profess Jesus Christ to be who other Christian Churches profess Him to be.As I noted in the previous round, Muslims believe in Jesus Christ. They however view him differently. Sikhs may view Jesus as a prophet or a Guru. That does not make them Christians because they view Jesus differently. Likewise Mormonism sounds very similar to Chrisitanity to one with untrained ears. For those who understand Christianity it is like the sound of a chainsaw in an orchestra. It does not fit because it is not the same thing.[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...Non Debate RelatedI ask any Judges to only take the comments up to and including my sources in term of Judging. What is posted here is for the sole benefit of my young but worthy opponent.Seriously I don't understand why you see us differently. Why do you feel it necessry to try and poke at our religion?First of all you issued the debate. As such we are supposed to debate the topic. In that sense it is nothing personal. It is just what one does on a debate site.At the same time I only choose to debate that which I believe to be true. I believe Mormonism to be a completely fabricated religion. The Book of Mormon has obvious factual errors. It can be shown by that the quotes from the bible in the Book of Mormon were not given by God, but were lifted from the King James Bible. I say this because they contain the same translation errors.If Joseph Smith was made an Apostle by God, where were his miracles?Is there something about it that influences the way you make decisions? Yes there is. It is false and denies the true nature of Jesus Christ. Mormon doctrine cannot be historically upheld when comparing it with the historical writings of the Church Fathers. It is contrary to scripture and is logically unsound. That is my complaint with the religion and not the people. Many mormons are fine people, but their faith is in error.On a side note, do you support gay marriage, Muslims, or abortion? No. I support Muslims, but not their faith. There is no faith more Pro-Life than Catholicism.
Mormons are Christians

Ok I never argued if the word Christian appeared in the Bible or how long it has been around. Christianity is a Christ-centered belief. Look up the definition of Christian or Christianity. This isn't a hard problem to solve. Seriously I don't understand why you see us differently. Why do you feel it necessry to try and poke at our religion? Is there something about it that influences the way you make decisions? On a side note, do you support gay marriage, Muslims, or abortion? Those are completely random. I would just like to know your answer.
Gun Control

With the recent tragedies in Sandy Hook Elementary, Aurora Theater Shooting, and the shooting at the Oregon mall the call for gun control is at its highest peak. While I do feel for the families and victims of the mass shootings I don't call for such gun control for three main reasons the 2nd amendment, people kill people, and real stats about guns. The definition of a Constitution is an established law, custom, or the supreme law of the land(1). Which means the laws in the Constitution and the articles and amendments that are written in it are supposed to be held above any other law that is made in the land. Among the 27 amendments the 2nd one is the amendments that states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (2)." It states in the Constitution reminding all those who read this that the Constitution is the higher law of the land that the rights for people to own and have guns shall not be infringed so any gun control legislation should by law be illegal. People kill people, it is the sad truth that there are such things as murders in today's society that kill with tools. Which a gun is a tool that is what people must remember. Guns aren't walking on the street and shooting people who are giving them a bad look, it is people. If I get an F on a test can I blame the pencil on writing the wrong answers, of course not. But people now try to blame gun crimes on guns instead of criminals. If someone gets drunk and drives and kills someone is there a call to ban alcohol or cars, no than why guns. People kill people it is true no tool as killed a person without a master. Guns get a bad reputation, but the facts suggest that they should be placed in a better light. With a lot of mass shootings happening around the country people want to feel safe well the best way to feel safe is having an armed civilian when a mass shooting happens when the shooter is stopped by a armed civilian an average of 2.2 people die, when the shooter is stopped by police an average of 18.25 people die, police offers can't be there at all times people need to stand up. 99.99% of all guns will never be used in a violent way with this percentage how can 0.01% punish the whole country doesn't seem right. Gun control doesn't stop criminals from getting guns 96% of all guns used in a crime was obtained illegally. Look at Gun control around the country the cities with the most gun control are Chicago, New York, California, and Connecticut yet this is were the most gun crime happens. Gun control doesn't work and it will never work. Sources (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) http://www.law.cornell.edu... www.defendschools.com
supersaijin and bankai in reality.

So my opponent ends up making absolutely no argument which I guess means that he drops the entire round. His entire point centers around humans having phenomenal powers sadly he also argues that these powers are beyond human comprehension. This is where I disagree, I have offered reasons why human comprehension of these phenomena happens all the time. My opponent leaves this unrefuted, thus I can see nothing but a vote for Con. Thank you. =)
supersaijin and bankai in reality.

I negate. The last line of my opponents argument quite clearly states, "This is completely different. If anyone understands and disagrees with me that Humans possess special abilities that lie outside of societies acceptance and knowledgable understanding, Debate me about this." The most important part of this statement specifically is, "Humans possess special abilities that lie outside of societies acceptance and knowledgable understanding," thus I find myself disagreeing on two levels. 1. While I agree that humans are powerful beings and can overcome many obstacles I do not agree that these abilities are beyond societal acceptance. I challenge my opponent to please name me one instance where a human power is not accepted by society. I can think of some good examples of amazing humans beings myself. Lance Armstrong(sp) is pretty sweet. Anyone know what parkour is? Those guys are awfully cool. But there powers are not beyond societal acceptance. Free divers hold their breath for 5-8 minutes, thats rather nifty but not beyond societal acceptance. Please provide a counter example. 2. None of my examples listed above are beyond knowledgeable understanding. I can easily understand Lance Armstrong's muscular makeup. I can understand the resistance encountered in a Parkour fall combined with the equal and opposite reaction on the human body through force vectors from that fall. I can understand the the human ability to increase the surface area of their lungs, through practice, in order to be able to hold the breath longer through increased oxygen absorption. I once again challenge my opponent to offer a counter example. Finally I must comment that none of these "powers" come anywhere close to supersaijin and bankai. Has anyone noticed someone doing this lately? http://www.youtube.com... Thanks.
supersaijin and bankai in reality.

Through studying people and their personal advancements I have come to determine the biological evolution occurs not just over the years and through genetic traits, but a sort of physical and mental empowerment can be achieved. The body of a being intelligent enough and or emotionally developed enough can overcome and overwhelm almost any obstacle. My argument is to assess the actual facts that prove a sort of power that humans possess. No I am not speaking of political nor am I speaking of shooting energy balls or authority. This is completely different. If anyone understands and disagrees with me that Humans possess special abilities that lie outside of societies acceptance and knowledgable understanding, Debate me about this.
all schools should <NOT> be public they "all" should be private with high tech security

I negate, "all public schools should be private with high tech security". chreis2002's reason to affirm is basically because there are shootings. But I don't think that we should go PRO based off of that. First of all, he says that all schools should be private, which means that he advocates that the government should no longer provide free public education. I think, that with the government we have that already doesn't provide us healthcare, taking education away will only make society even worse and inevitably, have a HUGE impact on our economy. Second, he says that schools should have high tech security. However, this does NOT mean that we need to privatize schools in order to have high tech security, and even then, we don't even need high tech security in order to curb violence: The root cause of all of these shootings is that these people were ostracized or shunned out of social groups, and that can be solved in an alternative way. High tech security isn't really going to solve anything except maybe come into effect after the shootings: Unless you have thought police, you can't prevent every instance from happening. On that note, making all schools private won't prevent shootings from happening. Since the cause of shootings isn't because schools are public, we can't just 'solve' the problem by closing campuses.
all schools should <NOT> be public they "all" should be private with high tech security

For the last past years, there have been mass killing,shooting, and violence in schools. something that shouldn't happend or expected to happend in a learning enviroment. students in their society has gotten attracted,some scared,or stress of even want to come to school knowing what will happend. i think honestly that all school should have police guard around in or out the building to keep out what i say (aliens)out. this can lead to reducing bullying,fighting, and contraverses
Moral Education of children?Whose responsibility ? -(parents+) (school-)

That may be so but the parent's can't teach their kids everything they need to know, unless they want their children to be in the same career as them. In that case we would have no need for teachers because then kids would be born into their parents' jobs. Those who were born to be a teacher would have no job because there would be no need for it. We have teachers to teach our kids so they can choose their own careers and make their own future, instead of living a dull life.
Apple Should Assemble and Produce All Products in the United States

Apple is a company that provides products that are unique to the industry. Their computers have software unlike the traditional PC, and (as of now) have no viruses that could potentially harm owners. MP3 players and iPods have become practically synonymous, as well as iPads and tablets. Apple has created products that people want. Despite the fact that most of their products cost much more than comparable items on the market, Apple stock values have continued to climb throughout 2012. [1] Apple has created for itself its own bubble by continuing to improve upon and update their products, and making the brand a household name. The company has been playing a price game since its founding, which has allowed it to grow to the capacity that it has. Even though the products never go on sale, by creating a web of products that complement each other and strategic pricing, sales continue to stay high. [2] Although insourcing the production and assembly of Apple products would cause the prices of Apple to rise, the following that Apple has acquired and the uniqueness of their products would keep their sales. This would also appeal to people within the United States, especially as the debate over insourcing v. outsourcing has become so prevalent, and potentially attract buyers. In recent years, it has become less profitable to outsource production and assembly to countries such as China. Recently, Apple has announced that they will start manufacturing a new line of Macs in the US instead of China. China"s wages have been going up, making it less cost effective to have Apple products manufactured there. Apple has stated that the actual production and assembly of their products has very little to do with the production cost. The biggest part of that cost is the chips and technology that go in their devices, the most of which are made and sold in the United States anyway. [3] Bringing back jobs to the United States would potentially boost the country"s economy, allowing for more potential profits, opportunities and investors. Ultimately, moving the production and assembly of Apple products to the United States could help Apple, by gaining a wider consumer base, and the United States as a whole, as the insourcing of one of the country"s most wealthy companies would provide a large boost to the economy. [1] http://www.macrumors.com... [2]http://www.msnbc.msn.com... [3]http://finance.yahoo.com...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. 4. If the universe has a cause, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful. 5. Therefore, there exists an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who sans the universe is beginningless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, changeless, and enormously powerful. Rules/ StipulationsThe burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the KCA is a sound argument. My burden is to undermine the argument, and/ or the support for it. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."PS. I would respectfully ask that nobody who has been a debate on the KCA with me recently accept this debate. I want to keep it fresh.
Sunglasses are superior to baseball hats on a sunny day

I would like to rebut my opponent's points to begin. Sunglasses are not more expensive than baseball hats. Sunglasses sell for as cheap as 10 USD and even 20 USD for polarized sunglasses. The sunglasses that cost upwards of 100 USD are almost always brand-name sunglasses worn for the brand, rather than the use. You can buy perfectly functional sunglasses for the same price that you can buy a baseball cap, or even less. Baseball hats do cover more of the face, but as a downside they are much hotter. The opposition stated that it is worth taking the heat from wearing a baseball cap to receive the benefits of shielding your face from the sun. This is a subjective stance, and one could argue that the heat you feel is not worth the additional protection. Baseball cap brims only cover the forehead, eyes, and upper cheekbones. The bottom half of the face is left completely exposed. Baseball caps do not actually cover that much of your face, thus the heat you feel is not worth the minimal additional protection that you receive. Yes, you can express yourself more with baseball caps, depending on the logo or whatever you wear on it, but when it comes to the shape of baseball caps, they are all relatively the same. You have flat brims, curved brims, snapbacks, etc, but they are all the basic shape. Sunglasses on the other hand come in all different shapes and sizes, so you can really find a unique pair that complements the contours of your face well, that can express yourself even better than a generic Cardinals baseball cap. If one has a handbag, depending on the size, you may be able to fit into it the slim profile of a pair of sunglasses but not a baseball cap with its large bill. Sunglasses take up less space and are sleeker. Transporting baseball caps are not that big of a problem, thus why so many people wear them. I am not asserting that baseball caps are a giant nuisance to carry, merely that they are a bigger nuisance to carry than sunglasses. I have successfully rebutted all of my opponent's points, and negated their rebuttals to my own points, therefore sunglasses are superior to baseball caps. Good luck with your next speech.
Sunglasses are superior to baseball hats on a sunny day

Welcome to the site, Pro. And good luck to you too. As you stated that this is a casual debate, and I am feeling kind of lazy, I am fine without using any sources for this one. I feel that baseball hats are superior to sunglasses for three reasons: -Baseball hats are generally cheaper -One can express him/herself more with baseball hats -Baseball hats provide protection to the whole face, rather than to only the eyes Sunglasses can cost up to $150, while the more expensive baseball hats are around $30. That means that baseball hats will be superior for someone who cannot afford more expensive sunglasses. One can put express themselves with baseball hats more easily than with sunglasses. I can make it easier to show people I am a St. Louis Cardinals fan by wearing a Cardinals baseball hat than by wearing red sunglasses. As a person with fair skin, I get sunburned really easily and I hate putting on sunscreen every hour (I burn that easily). So, in order to have one fewer place to put on sunscreen, I wear a baseball hat to protect my whole face from the sun. Yes, while sunglasses protect the eyes very well, they fail to protect the rest of the face, which could cause some serious skin cancer, which is the most prevalent type of cancer, and is preventable, by wearing baseball hats. Baseball hats are indeed hot, but isn't it worth being hot for a couple of hours to protect yourself from the dangers of skin cancer and eye damage? Also, one wearing a baseball hat can take it off for a minute to wipe off any sweat on his/her face and can take it off to fan his/her head. If one has a handbag or backpack, a baseball hat is no problem to transport. If transporting a baseball hat was such a problem, why do so many people wear them? In conclusion, baseball hats are superior for the reasons shown. Thank you for debating this topic. Good luck with your next speech.
Sunglasses are superior to baseball hats on a sunny day

Hi! I'm new to this site and I'd like to get the lay of the land by participating in a low-stakes, easy-going debate. That means sources aren't required but optional (I know that in actual debates sources are a must but who cares I just wanna have fun). That also means let me know if I'm doing something dumb. So, I'd like to argue that sunglasses are superior to baseball hats on a sunny day. This takes into account eye-protection, face-protection, economical cost, etc. Basically, if it was super sunny outside and there was a stand selling baseball hats and sunglasses, which would you buy? Ok I hope someone is interested in this, haha, but I'll lay out my first argument. Good luck to whoever may accept! --------------------- Sunglasses are superior to baseball hats for three reasons: sunglasses provide direct protection to the eyes, wearing a baseball hat on a sunny day is extremely hot, and sunglasses are easier to carry when not in use. Sunglasses provide direct protection to the eyes. Sunglasses' main purpose is to shield the sun from the eyes, and are UV protected to prevent the sun from hurting your eyes. While baseball hats may shade your eyes, light can still reflect off bright surfaces and into your eyes, so baseball hats do not offer nearly as much eye protection. Sunglasses often reduce bright glares, providing better visibility on sunny days. Sunglasses do not make your head hot like baseball caps. Sunglasses are light and rest on your eyes and suspend the lenses in front of your eyes via 2 thin wires or 2 plastic strips. Baseball hats on the other hand are essentially cotton hats that you wear on your head. Wearing such a garment on your head on a sunny (and hot) day is not worth the little sun protection your face will receive because the heat will not be worth it. Sunglasses are easier to transport than baseball caps. Sunglasses are smaller and lighter and when not in use you can stick them in your breast pocket or tuck them into a bag or even hang them from your shirt collar. Meanwhile, hats are big and the only way you can carry them without wearing it is in your hand if you don't have a bag. If you DO have a bag, the hat will take up more space than sunglasses. To recap, I have shown and proved that sunglasses offer more sun protection to the eyes, are less hot to wear, and are easier to transport. Therefore, sunglasses are better than baseball caps.