BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Whaling

But why do we need to hunt whales? Why is it so vitally important? It may be important to less than a tenth of a percent of the world's human population, but that's one tenth of a percent! Whale meat isn't essential to the seafood we fish from the sea each year. Neither is Japan's so-called "research." 80% of Norwegian whales. And what about the other 20%? Cruel, slow, painful deaths? Multiple harpoon shots? And what about the Japanese whalers? They're under less regulation than the Norwegians have in place, and they have been known to step out of international regulation. What about these whalers from Russia? Indonesia? Do they have the same safeguards as the Norwegians? Do they care as much for the animal's welfare? The fact is, hunting whale meat is a luxury we don't need to take the risk with. Whales are endangered. Countries violate international treaties to hunt them. Why do we risk extinction for just some whale meat?
Whaling

My opponent implies that the killing of domesticated animals in a farm is morally different than killing a wild animal in the wild. We must examine this point to determine if it is valid, and to do so we must look at the experience of the animal. In both cases, the animal dies. So what is different in the two cases? The animal's life prior to death. I find it difficult to comprehend why an animal would find it more pleasant to grow up on a factory farm than in the wild, where he would naturally live. No one is considering the farming of whales, so the only feasible way of taking them is in the natural environment: a better place to live. The percent value of the hunted whales in comparison to the percent of human hunters is always going to be higher. This is the case with virtually every form of hunting, as there is little chance, for example, that more than one hunter is required to shoot a single deer. The exception to this is whaling, in which more than one crew member is indeed required to hunt one whale. But they invariably hunt more whales in a season than there are crew on a boat. My opponent's comparison here may be factually true, but it is statistically irrelevant, because regardless of the numbers of whales and whalers, the hunt is ecologically sustainable, as is understood by scientific whale authorities, such as the IWC and NAMMCO. There are approximately five populations throughout the world that hunt whales under IWC regulation: Alaskans, Canadians, Greenlanders, Russians, Indonesians, and the people of St. Vincent & Grenadines. My opponent describes the harpoon grenades that are used to hunt large whales. One must realize that these grenades are quite expensive, and there is no real reason to use them instead of a plain steel harpoon, except for the reason of animal welfare. I have yet to see footage of a whaling shot that results in "gore everywhere". In Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. the grenade explodes inside the whale, for maximal organ damage and quick death. This technology has been highly successful, leading to 80% of Norwegian shot whales dying instantaneously. To give an analogy, being shot with a plain steel ("cold") harpoon is akin to a stabbing, while the exploding grenades are more akin to a gunshot. I believe we can be in agreement that the harpoon grenades are better in regards to animal welfare.
Whaling

How many bison farmers are there in the US? Well, I don't have the number off the top of my head, but *farming* is a lot different than *hunting* a wild animal. These animals are bred to be slaughtered, whereas wild animals are simply captured and slaughtered. Whaling isn't a niche industry. There's plenty of other fish in the sea, so to speak. Especially since we hunt it primarily for its meat. We only hunt about a tenth of a percent of the world whale population? [citation needed] 1/10 is still a lot larger than 0.0000014% of the human global population. Can you provide an estimate of how many "indigenous" populations are allowed to/actively hunt these creatures? But most of our seafood is also wild-caught, not farmed. These harpoons are tipped with grenades. Literal grenades. Explosions. Kaboom! Gore everywhere. And if it misfires, it's going to take multiple shots or a lot longer for the whale to die. I never suggested locking whales up in special farms to harvest their meat. My position here is that we should not be hunting these creatures.
Whaling

1. It is important to understand that the IWC moratorium, legally, does not apply to catches taken under scientific permit. Controversial as these permits are, they do exempt Japan from the zero-catch limit. Japan does take a number of other whales in addition to minkes, but the numbers taken are a great deal smaller than the catch of minkes. For example, according to the IWC records, since the moratorium, Japan has taken 13,298 minke whales, which dwarfs the 658 Bryde's whales, 1,089 sei whales, and 56 sperm whales taken in the 28 years of research catches since the moratorium. The ICRW does not require approval from the commission to issue research permits, only mandating that they and the research findings be submitted for review. The North Atlantic Fin Whale, according to the IUCN [1], "European regional assessment: Near Threatened". This ranking means that this stock of whales is not endangered. The populations in the N. Atlantic are generally "either stable or increasing". It is important to regard that species are not classified as endangered only by numbers, but by the danger posed to the species of population decline or extinction. 2. http://www.nammco.no... Sea Shepherd's testimony is not to be taken without a grain of salt. And there is a substantial difference between the whaling in Norway and Japan. Norwegians use much smaller boats, at much lower speeds, and have higher quality grenades for the harpoons. Clear footage from whaling in Norway is scarce, but one video I know of is in my list of sources at the bottom. It shows how the whale is shot and killed in just a moment. And minke whales do not make audible sound, so not sure what SS is talking about when they say the whale "screamed". 4. Whaling is not the only small industry in the world. And that number is only commercial whaling workers. Thousands more are involved in some manner in indigenous communities throughout the world. How many bison farmers are there in the US? Or chestnut farmers? Or other niche industries? We must not hold whalers to a double standard. But to answer your question, no, we should not. And we already are not, because we hunt only about a tenth of a percent of the world whale population yearly. I will be quite impressed if a respected scientific authority sees this as a threat. Fishing by-catch and pollution are harming many more than the small whale hunting industry. Whaling is many times more humane than the factory farms most of the west's meat comes from. One may call it cruel to shoot an animal with a large gun, but I consider it cruel to lock the animal up his whole life, in a dark, filthy pen or cage, being fed artificial chemical hormone-infused feed, and then kill him with a small gun. We each may pick the life animals would prefer. They die either way, what matters is the quality of life. The quickness of death is not much different between farming, big game hunting, and whaling. Whaling video: [1] http://www.iucnredlist.org...
Whaling

1. First of all, Minke whales and finback whales are not the only ones being hunted. Japan, in blatant disregard of previous internationally-set zero quotas for sperm whales and Bryde's whales, Japan continued to hunt them. The Bryde's whales zero quota was sent in 1976 by the International Whaling Commission, but in the same 1976-1978 whaling season Japan would kill at the least 225 of them. In 1986, Japan submitted a research proposal to the IWC to take 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales for that season. Even though this proposal was declined, Japan continued to hunt these animals anyway. Furthermore, the finback whale is actually rated as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, even in the North Atlantic. The entire species, including all of its subspecies, is endangered. Current estimates by the IWC find that there is only a population of approximately 25,000 for the Greenland/Iceland/Jan Mayen area, and only 4,000 for North and East Norway (. http://www.iucnredlist.org...). 2. Could you please provide a link to your Norwegian source? My source (. http://luna.pos.to...) finds that on average it takes just over 2 minutes for minke whales to die after being harpooned, and according to evidence from the Sea Shepherds they observed the death took 25 minutes and during this time the whale screamed loudly and thrashed while more shots were put into it because the initial harpoon was a poor shot (. http://www.animalplanet.com...). 3. Whale meat, yes, is not toxic. The Japanese eat it all the time. I will concede this point. 4. The industry provides income to a whole 1000 people? 1000 people out of seven billion worldwide is 0.0000014%, according to my calculations. Also, last I checked, Norway has a very good welfare system, as well as state healthcare. These fisherman also do, as you yourself have pointed out, have a regular income during the winter. Do we risk putting entire species into extinction at the expense of 0.0000014% of the world's population?
Whaling

I will be arguing FOR whaling. There are three conditions for acceptance of this debate. I feel they are simple, but I have been disappointed in the past. 1. Stay on topic. 2. Do not lie. 3. COMPLETE THE DEBATE. My beginning arguments are as follows: 1. The target species are NOT endangered. Minke whales are not at all endangered, fin whales are not endangered in the North Atlantic, which is where they are hunted. 2. It IS possible to kill humanely. Statistics from Norway show that 80% of whales are confirmed dead within a moment, and at least one veterinarian believes that instant insensibility is even more common. 3. Whale meat is NOT toxic. This myth is primarily based on meat from dolphin or similar species, not baleen whales. Baleen whales feed directly from the lowest levels of the food chain, and thus do not exhibit the magnification effect of toxins that is observed in dolphins. 4. Whaling provides societal benefits. The industry provides income to some 1,000 people, who would be without money if whaling were to stop. Especially in small rural communities for example in Northern Norway, whaling is a significant supplement to fishermen's incomes in the summer months, when the cod are away.
In Christianity a "Saved" person can become not "Saved"

Since my opponent forfeit, I wil wrap this up quickly. Salvation is for those God chose to believe. If you die and are not saved, then it makes absolutley no sense to say that you were saved at some point in time; all the saved means, is saved in the end. God predestines his elect, and predestines the non-elect to serve in his purpose of glorification. Us as humans do not like this position, because it pretty much eliminates our chances of special recognition. The scriptures speak most clearly about how we recieve pardon, and how we will endure until the end. Since this has been established as concrete, all other passages must be read in light of the more plain texts. If it is said the those who leave were never among us; then it must be so, and it follows that any passages that seem to imply apostacy as something a true believer can do, must be cross referenced both to passages of similar nature, and those where the message is plain and clear. My opponent looks to 1 Corinthians 6:9 for support, but the very implication of self-righteousness deny's him this assistance. 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. The last verse of this passage was not included for some reason in my opponents use of it. It, however, still affirms what I've been saying. Those whom were justified by God through Christ, are not any better now that they are saved, they are graciously marked with the seal of God's promise, and seen through the lens of Christ as just. Since God views us in light of his son, we are seen as holy, righteous beings. Pauls confession in Romans 7 should be enough to derail any argument for works or self-righteousness in this passage (or any others). Since we cannot uphold the LAW, we cannot do good (even if we know it), and cannot be placed or removed of God's love from ourselves; it only makes sense that once you are saved, you are saved. period.
In Christianity a "Saved" person can become not "Saved"

I appreciate your enthusiasm! Thank you for accepting and I’m glad you will enjoy this debate as much as I will. Opening Statements 1. Mark 13:13 [Jesus said] “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” [NIV] This will be the pinnacle of my arguments. This has got to be the most obvious verse for the point I want to make. This is a warning from Jesus to his disciples, past and present ones. Jesus is warning that people will hate Christians because of their belief that Jesus is in fact the Messiah, and that the Christians need to keep believing and never deny their loyalty to Jesus. Matthew 10:33 “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” (KJV) Mark 13:13 says that those who uphold the name of Jesus at one point must continue to uphold the name of Jesus until the point of “the end”. This leads me to my next scripture reference. Romans 10:9 “That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (NIV) So in order to be saved in the first place, a person would have to speak the words aloud “Jesus is Lord” and then believe that God raised him from the dead. Speaking these words aloud will make you saved. (along with believing). Now, according to Mark 13:13 people will start to hate you because you have spoken aloud the words “Jesus is Lord”. Jesus instructs that you must stand firm against this hate. In fact, it is safe to say that Jesus brings up the possibility that one could not stand firm until the end, in which case, said person would leave the “saved” category. In conclusion, a person is only saved as long as he/she is under the protection of Jesus. As soon as a person would come out from under the protection that Jesus provided for them, they would re-enter death.
In Christianity a "Saved" person can become not "Saved"

Thanks to Callen for posting this debate.I love discussing this topic, and hope for a very edifying discussion.I have to warn my opponent.. I tend to lag on my responses, and if you check out my history of debates, I've forfeit a few due to not responding in time.With that said, I will to my best to reply on time and provide my opponent with a full debate.
Is Religion/God real

Hello, I am waiting for your reply.. Just like what I have said from my previous message, the miracles of GOD are the VERY STRONG evidence of His existence, and these are not happened by chance!!! Sometimes GOD performs immediate miracles to our church while we are not aware or not asking for it. Many from our church brethrens including my self have experienced miraculous works of GOD from a vehicular accidents. When I was riding inside the motorcycle cab, the front wheel of my tricycle was removed. Our tricycle fell and roll 3x, I thought I will die or will have a serious injury. But GOD save me from that very moment I was not hurt compare to one of my co-passenger which was hurt and wounded. Scores of my church brethren experienced being bumped by a fast moving vehicle, fell few meters away but miraculously saved without scratches or serious injuries, contrary to the vehicle's bumper which was broken. GOD saves us too from raging nature calamities just like what happened to our church brethren from the past Japan tsunami tragedy last month. All of our church brethrens were saved , their houses was not damaged compare to their neighbors with dead love ones and their houses were destroyed. It will took me dozens of hours if I will write all miracles happened to us from tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, blizzards, fires, pestilence, plaques, from poverty to financial freedom. from sickness to wellness, and etc... etc.. God always saves us, heals us ,prosper us, and treat us very special. This is heritage of GOD's real servants. By the way check out the latest miracles the LORD made from our last church crusade: http://www.youtube.com... God bless you!
Is Religion/God real

Hi, I want to accept your challenge. First I want to clarify that English is not my first language, and I am not that good in grammar. But I want to prove to you and to all readers from this site that there is a GOD and HE is REAL! By the way, I am a Christian, I do not condemn other religions only GOD can judge them. I believe GOD will judge false religions, gay priest, etc. by the works and thru his WORD (bible). Have you pray to GOD? How do you become an atheist? What do you believe? Who created Earth? How do we exist if theres no GOD?
Is Religion/God real

I know this is going to offended people but watch how when I say this the following will happen 1.Kats will ignore it and refuse out comment because it offends them they do not know how to respond 2. They will insult with no credible explanations just insult What I really want to say is I know there is no god. I'll break it down very quickly my points and observations. For one Christianity teaches those who are not Christian are not saved thus are sent to hell… the other 2 major religions teach the same (Islam Judaism). So take that into consideration… are you seriously telling me billions of people are deemed to hll because they don't believe in what you believe in? Next, as times change it becomes convent to make acceptations to who goes to hll based on social acceptance and/or directions. Example; homosexuals, if major religion directs their followers in anyway- it is one that clearly steers to this point: homosexuals go to hll period. I find it funny how some religious people skip over this fact…there are gay priest n now. You can't conveniently decide what's expect able, how can man just dictate what they feel is appropriate for the times; and why are these gods not intervening to correct such atrocities! I know why Quick point: Did you know the story of Jesus has been repeated throughout ancient history's' text- years before Jesus. Nope you didn't, that is why you are getting mad. How come an all powerful god wouldn't just destroy the devil? This is his plan right? Riiiight… Have you realized how large the universe is lately? How obvious it is we are not the only life forms in this place? We are merely speaks of dust and mostly likely a very inferior being to some that might be out there. Or not too there are probably just germs on rocks! Do some research for some of you punks who think ignorance is cool, do that research go to space. com, other sites as such. Amazes me that I'm the nerd, funny; that's just me. As I end this story ask your self this; why after an articulate well though out argument the answer for religious zelics and/or moderate religious folk is: Have faith? In essence, believe something just because…believe without understanding. Just have faith! Ha! Jokes, maybe Zeus will strike me too. I have faith in Zeus why not?
THW: take a one-way trip to Mars

No one denies the fact that the Earth is growing worse minute by minute. Global warming, climate change, and many other things make Earth slowly grow to a place humans cannot live in. And because of that, in order to survive, we need to take a one-way trip to Mars. Before moving on to my argument, I will define some terms in the motion. By 'we', it means 40 people sent in order to research about and live on Mars. By one-way trip, I mean a trip to Mars, not coming back. My caseline is that a one- way trip to Mars will save and benefit humanity in many ways. My first argument is that many discoveries will be made. Even though we have event many space probes into researching for Mars, we still don't exactly know what is in this planet so like Earth. We don't know what amazing potentials that is in Mars and we don't know what is in there that can help solve the problems we have now. Also, we can also see whether Mars is capable of living in there or not. As said in the first phase of my speech, Earth is slowly growing to a desolate place not much different than the other planets. By researching Mars, we can see whether we can live in there or not, and see whether humanity can be saved there. This is why these arguments connect to the caseline, a one way trip to Mars will save and benefit humanity in many ways. I am proud to propose.
THW: take a one-way trip to Mars

Humans who do not feel 'greed' or a 'need to survive', whichever way you call it, can stay at Earth and see the last chances of escaping from this slowly dying Earth. They can also stay when the Earth is being destroyed. A one way trip to Mars is not only for expanding human civilization, but in order to survive. My second argument is that a lot of technology will be developed by a trip to Mars. There are many preparations to be made when going to Mars. In doing that, we may be able to invent many things. Imagine you make a motor, and then you invent an electronic fan. This is called 'spinoff technology', since an invention is made from an another invention. In making and also inventing the equipment used for the trip, they will not only invent inventions for space researching, but will also be able to invent things that will help humanity in many other ways. It is a fact that a treatment for cancer was discovered by NASA when it was researching about making rockets. Also, as I have stated before, nobody knows what kind of resources are hidden in Mars. We've already found water-that itself is a proof of the amazing potential that is hidden in Mars. When discovering these new things, science will take a huge leap. Each new kind of rock, each new kind of unknown chemical will greatly improve science. Many new inventions will be made by these newly discovered chemicals and objects, and which will improve both the lives of humankind, and science, as stated. These new things may also contribute in making treatments for diseases. And this is why these assertions connect to e caseline: A one-way trip to Mars will improve humankind in many ways. We are very proud to propose.
THW: take a one-way trip to Mars

A sense of entitlement is entrenched in human nature. We perceive ourselves as being superior in every way and greed causes us to constantly feel entitled to more than what belongs to us. By proposing that we send a team to Mars in the interest of expanding human civilization, you demonstrate the inherent greed of humanity. I accept your definition of the motion, however I am proceeding with this on the assumption that the 40 people sent into space are going as a trial with the plan to eventually relocate a significant portion of the human population from Earth to Mars. I assume your ideas will be further elaborated on in later rounds, but I will also outline mine here. The idea of travelling to Mars is unfeasible for three main reasons: 1. The financial cost of travelling and the political disruption that arises from creating a new society 2. The lack of necessary resources and the impossibility of transporting these resources 3. The fact that discovery and exploration of outer space is relatively unnecessary in comparison to scientific research here on Earth