BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals in a zoo are in bleak prisons.

Well in that case this is totally debatable. I will be taking the side that animals in zoos are not in bleak prisons. For my first card of evidence, I would like to present this picture of a peacock enjoying his zoo http://1.bp.blogspot.com... And of course, how could we ignore the rancor in his natural habitat here at the zoo? http://www.geekalerts.com... The simple fact is that zoos are not prisons. They don't keep animals captive. Here we see an animal enjoying his freedom to come and go from the zoo https://lh3.googleusercontent.com... My basic point is that animals are not captives at zoos. They're free animals that stay there by choice. Here's the history behind zoos. They were originally created as houses that animals could come and go from, and people from the village could look at the animals and pet them. This is a picture from back in those days. It's the only surviving picture of the original zoo we have: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com... Zoos started to spread throughout the country, and they were keeping all sorts of animals safe and fed. The animals and humans had a wonderful relationship with each other. Beast and man were best friend http://3.bp.blogspot.com... Then one day, the animals got tired of being observed by humans. Rumors started to spread that animals were going to be hunted at these zoos despite the promise of protection. The animals were quiet for a long time, but one day war broke out. These are some of the remaining pictures of the war: http://1.bp.blogspot.com... http://haveyounerd.files.wordpress.com... http://blog.nuraypictures.com... http://4.bp.blogspot.com... So the zoos had the make a change in the way they did things. They put fences around the animals and put them in cages. It was for everyone's protection. Animals, however, we're not captives. They were given a proper escape plan on case they did not want to be there. Here is the great boa constrictor escaping: http://switchboard.nrdc.org... Modern day, the animals do have an illusion of captivity, but they are not captive. They are completely free to leave whenever they want. They just have decided not to open up war on humanity and leave their cages. If humans were to provoke them, however, total war could break out again.
Animals in a zoo are in bleak prisons.

The resolution is that animals are kept in prisons when kept in zoos. The definition of prison according to Merriam-Webster is "a building (or vessel) in which people are legally held as a punishment for crimes they have committed or while awaiting trial." We do not put animals in zoos for breaking the law; therefore, the resolution is false. Words mean things. You can't just throw them around to make statements more extreme.
Animals in a zoo are in bleak prisons.

Is a zoo really a prison, just for animals?A prison is any place of confinement or involuntary restraint. Are animals in azoo being restrained? Stuck in a cage and put on a schedule. Can a zoo reallysay that they are helping these animals? Or are they stripping them of learningon there on?A legitimate zoo is a place of conservation, running breeding programs to reintroducethreatened species back into their natural habitats. A zoo helps rebreedendangered animals. Zoos have become the last refuge for many species. They aremanaged by the leading professionals in wildlife and zoological fields.Conserving, protecting and studying endangered and threatened species and theplaces they inhabit, most facilities work united. A zoo also plays a role inenvironmental education. However, the word zoo means anestablishment, stationary or mobile, that maintains a collection of wildanimals that are kept for exhibition for study, conservation and display to thepublic. Though being taken well care of, the animals are forced to maintain ina small area for a very long time. Unlike a rescue center, a zoo doesn’t letthe animals go back to being free. Most animals start of in a zoo as babies andare too adapted to be set free. Other animals are forced to adapt to anenclosed environment and put on a strict schedule. Many animals in a zoo die from diseasesonly found in captivity. Some animals also suffer from zoochosis, which apsychological problem associated with animals that are kept in prolongedcaptivity. They are secluded away from normal animals that they will normallysee in the wild. Animals that are born in a zoo don’t have the ability to learnhow to hunt and gather food on their own. In conclusion animals are being taken awayfrom their natural habitat and put in cages and behind glass, like a commoncriminal. To be put on a schedule, become secluded, and surrounded by strangepeople. In my opinion an animals are in a bleak prison.
The politicization of a tragedy is appropriate and necessary immediately after a tragedy.

What is it to politicize?http://oxforddictionaries.com...cause (an activity or event) to become political in character What is a tragedy? an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophehttp://oxforddictionaries.com...Now for the duration of debate I shall explain why it is not only impractical but STUPID to politicize "a tragedy" of any kind.Politics, in the context of debate, is the collection of activities associated with the governance of a country or area.If we were to politicize all great sufferings then what is the limit? Our country only? Where do we draw the line? Who should we focus on publicizing it to?All these question come to mind at the issue, no answers at all.
The politicization of a tragedy is appropriate and necessary immediately after a tragedy.

There is no reason to do it.It is just because it hurts your feelings you think the government have to care? No.Their job is to worry about leading people, to force their will of socialism upon them and make a socialist community of happy slaves, the last thing on their mind is idiots like you who want to be free to go OMG THEY DIED LOOK AT THEM :'( when the real tragedy of society is liberal capitalism.
The politicization of a tragedy is appropriate and necessary immediately after a tragedy.

Considering the lack of argumentation from my opponent and the lack of response to my arguments, I will simply add the following:It's a quite common phrase in political science, "The personal is political." It's also very commonly assumed that, "The political is personal."What allowed individuals to claim that women should not be allowed to vote was this very strict distinction between "the public" and "the private." The private was thought to be not of any political nature, while the public was thought to be, of course, politics and that which is "outside the home." The assumed divisions of labor put the women in "the private" (the non-political) and the men in "the public," or the political.I argue here that it is all political, that the phrase "Everything has to do with everything" is quite astute. Tragedies need to be politicized. You may not be watching politics, but politics is watching you, and I can think of no tragedy tragedy that does not have at least one indirect political side to it.In response to Con's questions: There are no limits. Politics deals with everything within a sovereign border, and yes, that includes tragedies. The political impacts of tragedies in other countries quite apparent as well. At this very moment Syrians are being faced with a government that is planning on using chemical weapons on their own people. A tragedy? Yes. Political? Indeed.I also think tragedies should be publicized. To be clear, they should not be dramatized as the Casey Anthony case was. But, there is a reason why criminal records are public records. Examples of tragedies (whether you agree with their necessity or not) that are inherently political: WWI, WWII, Mai Lai, "Manifest Destiny," Road of Tears, Hiroshima, Abu Ghraib, Columbine, 9/11... and the list goes on.I will await any shred of argumentation that the politicization of tragedies is "stupid" as my opponent says, or that it is impractical. After all, this is a debate forum.
Resolved: The US Constitution requires that same-sex couples be given the legal right to marry.

Hi, I am new to this forum and look forward to many exciting debates! Here it goes... Resolved: The US Constitution requires that same-sex couples be given the legal right to marry. I will take the pro position in support of the resolution. Round 1- State your position Round 2- Construct your argument Round 3- Rebuttals (No new arguments) Stipulations: 1)Arguments from a religious, social, or moral perspective are irrelevant unless they can be shown to have bearing on the interpretation of the Constitution. 2)No arguments are to be given in round 1. Definitions: 1) Requires: deems it to be necessary 2) Same-sex couples: refers to exactly two people
President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban

We, as the public, do not have all the information about immigrants who have conducted or were planning terrorist attacks about immigrants who have conducted or were planning terrorist attacks. Trump has ordered that information to be available but it isn't available yet. Also, the Ohio State University attack was committed by an immigrant (2) on November 28, 2016. We do have proof that our vetting process is flawed (3) and if you have read the 9/11 commission report,, it identifies significant weaknesses in our ability to prevent major attacks. The update report confirms those weaknesses have not been addressed. It's a well known fact that Syria, at the very least, cannot provide the required information on its citizens. Why should we not take a period of our time to improve the vetting process to safeguard our citizens? The fact that Saudi Arabia is not on the list only suggests that Saudi Arabia, complies with our required information for vetting (4) - not that there is an alterior motive. You assume we have good vetting laws without you or I having reports that fully outline terrorist attacks or planned conducted by immigrants. Based on the fact that terrorists have been able to commit a horrific attack on United States soil (9/11, Pulse Nightclub attack, San Bernardino attack, etc.) and the fact that terrorists are willing to spend significant time and resources on a strategic attack AND that they despise the US, one would have to believe we'd rather be safe than sorry. Also, I am sorry for using," Muslim Immigration Ban," instead of," Travel Ban." I wish I could change that but I can't. Sources: (1) https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.nationalreview.com... (ISIS has also said that they will pose as refugees to enter this country (5)) (3) http://www.ibtimes.com...
President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban

I challenge you to find me even one terrorist attack that was performed in the United States that wasn't done by a citizen of the United States who was born here, but from an immigrant. Immigrants aren't our enemy. The travel ban is unnecessary for this reason, and really hurts people in foreign countries. Those people in those countries are trying to escape their governments that promote terrorism, as you mentioned. Why should we not accept people who are opposed to what their state is promoting? Just because they were unfortunate enough to be born there?We already have very good vetting laws in place. The evidence of that is the fact we've not had any terrorist attacks from immigrants. The only thing that needs to be done is extreme vetting. We've not had any attacks from immigrants, so why ban them? Why punish them for something they've not done themselves?Again, if my opponent fails to provide even one terrorist attack committed by an immigrant, this suggests they just don't commit these terrorist attacks and the travel ban is unfounded. While you might argue that these bans are keeping Americans safe(I don't think it makes a difference because the immigrants we accept don't do acts of terrorism), it certainly is making those immigrants less safe by not allowing them to come here. They live in countries that promote terrorism, as you said, and if you object to that, you're probably in danger in those countries. Also, something that I highly question about Trump's travel ban, is that it doesn't have Saudi Arabia or other countries that have a high presence of wahhabist Muslims. Wahhabist Muslims are much more likely to be violent and promoting of terrorism[1]. Shia Muslims are much more moderate than Wahhabists, and yet Iran is on the list who is predominantly Shia. The fact that Saudi Arabia and other countries are not on the list suggests Trump has some other motive behind this ban. Sources:[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban

I believe President Trump's Muslim Immigration Ban was a great choice because the Executive Order protects the people of this great nation from more terrorists trying to enter the United States, attack our way of life, citizens, and country. It's a fact, that Iran sponsors terrorism (1) , which is why the country is on the ban list as well as Sudan, Syria, Lybia, Iraq, and Yemen. All countries that since 1979, have been state-sponsors of terrorism. (2) (1) https://www.google.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheists cannot adequately explain morality

For my second point, I meant that we would individually die without order so we instinctively have morals as to not ourselves get harmed. This goes along with empathy. For my other point, there are many different theories for our purpose, I just don't believe any I've heard. The one we are arguing over is that we are here to serve God. So until you can prove He exists, and that He made us to serve him, none of your arguments are valid/ sufficient.
Atheists cannot adequately explain morality

Jumping right in. Here are my paraphrased arguments from the previous round: Previous round, Pro: How can an objective moral truth exist when our existence is objectiveless? and . . . Previous round, Pro: If objective moral truths require that we have a purpose, how can any intent (purposeful) existence of the human race exist if we're the product of undirected random mutations? [paraphrasing] my opponent responds . . . Con: 1) Purpose doesn't matter. Con: 2) Morals are necessary for suriving in a world that requires cooperative order. ------------------------------ 1) my opponent refuses to agree that objectives require a purpose. What is an objective? It's an intentional fulfillment of a requirement to reach a specified purpose. If no purpose exists among the purposeless human race, how can any objective exist among us in the form of objective morality? It's a simple logical contradiction. 2) cooperative order presupposes that our existence is to promote the evolution of the human race. If we sincerely have no purpose for our existence (resulting from undirected, random mutation) then no cooperative goal to enhance our continued survival can exist. Thank you, I look forward to your specific rebuttals to my points of contention, con.
Atheists cannot adequately explain morality

First of all, our purpose of existance does not matter. What is rellavent is that we are here and if we are to stay here we need morals. Without them, the world would be crazy and hectic, and we would be extinct rather quickly. We care about how others' feel because we have emotional bonds. And your main point is based on us having a God. We obviously have objective morals, so for you to be correct, you must first prove God exists.
Atheists cannot adequately explain morality

Thanks con. I am referring to a God that has traits of the Christian God. I'll paraphrase your major points while staying true to your logic. 1. I am an atheist, but I know that objective morals exist. I believe they exist because causing harm to other animals and stealing is wrong. If you agree that objective morality exists, I will then ask you how can anything definitively be "right" and "wrong" morally if we have no deliberate purpose for our existence? If we evolved from non-living material, how can a definitive purpose exist among the human race? Objective morals require that we have a purpose. Why? Because objectives don't exist in an objectiveless world unless you create objectives for yourself but then all morality would be subjective. Murder without cause and rape against someone's will is always wrong. Why though? Our moral code tells us that it is wrong. But why do we have a moral code that directs us for/against any kind of "wrong" purpose if we have no purpose to begin with? 2. I didn't need God to give me my objective morals. Humans have a sense of right and wrong because we are naturally empathetic. My argument is that objective morals can't exist without a God. Either God exists or he doesn't. There is no middle ground. If a supreme being does not exist, it follows that we have a spontaneous, unconscious, non-deliberate cause for our existence. If God does exist, it follows that have a purposeful existence to do God's will. Since the will of an omnibenevolent God is for us to treat each other with unconditional love, it follows that this is the same principle guiding the moral code of each human being. Empathy is a way of understanding how others feel. But why do human beings care about how others human beings feel if we sincerely have no objective purpose in life? If one human being wants to harm another, why is harm considered a "bad" purpose if we really don't have any purpose at all?
Atheists cannot adequately explain morality

First, as it says in the comments, I am assuming you are referring to the Christian God. Now to start. I am an atheist, but my morals (and other reasons it is irrelevant to get into) have helped with my decision to be vegan. I believe causing harm to other animals is wrong. I do not believe this out of fear of being sent to Hell or because a God told me to think this way. These morals exist because we as humans are empathetic and a majority of us feel something when we see an animal being injured or killed; especially one we relate to more like a human. Another issue is fairness. Say someone steels from you. You'd get upset. Why? Not because of God, because you feel cheated. We base our morals on our understanding of others' feelings. This has nothing to do with faith.
Atheists cannot adequately explain morality

By "explain morality" I mean that atheists can't give an adequate explanation of the existence of objective morals unless God exists. Objective morals are morals that are inherently true regardless of society, culture, time period, or beliefs. By "God" I mean the supreme being (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) and creator of the universe. The first round is for you to present your case as to why objective morals can exist in the absence of God. The burden of proof is on my opponent. By accepting this debate you agree to these terms and rules. Thanks! Over to my opponent.
Same-Sex Marriage

I think you want might want to watch this but apply it to gays: I cant comprehend how ignorant and or stupid you must be. I don't care what you think, but you are a horrible person. "People are trying to define a sacred marriage." No one is doing that, we are. just trying to expand the meaning of traditional marriage. Well in our life, the courts do have more power than God. If God comes down and wants to control the government, let him do it. We all sin don't we, there is not a person on this earth that has not committed a sin. The bible teaches us to love one another like I said, and we certainly aren't doing that to everyone. You said why cant judge someone on how they used to live, so why can we judge how they live now? Maybe got created homosexuality to slow down the population because we are definitely running out of resources. I don't think you want everyone to like in peace before you are CONDEMING someone. You religious idiots who take the bible way to seriously ruin a lot of things. I still can't understand why you trust the word of a 2000 year old book over someone else. I know you will say you aren't, but you are. You are saying just because the bible may say that being gay is wrong that Gay's are sinners; well you're a sinner too. I want to know how being gay is falling into sin when people are born that way. Google it, there is scientific proof that being gay is determined at marriage. Why did God create people if he know they were going to send. If God is this superior being, why didn't he stop 9/11 or ISIS? If God is so great why didn't he create world peace. Why didn't he take away the ability to do wrong. You're the problem with society, you need to learn to accept someone for who they aren't and not try to change them. Isn't comforting to know that people that think like you have hate groups? It is almost humorous how you preach all these bible things yet once again you are contradicting the main message of the bible. I suppose you also think the world is only 2000 years old. I can't comprehend how you can be such a sheep. How does same-sex marriage affect you negatively. You should be glad because countries are starting to learn one another like the bible wants us to. You are clearly believing what you want to believe and it shows pure ignorance. I suppose if you had a gay son or daughter you would kick them out; that would make you a horrible person. I hope one day you can see how stupid you sound and wake up. What's the point of living if you are a slave to a book and don't make your own decisions. Even if you win this debate, that is like winning a very small battle. No matter what you choose to believe, you are losing this war. We will unite one day and love everyone!