BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Seal murder is beneficial.

I center my argument around three main statements. Statement 1: Seals were and are a part of Inuit life. Statement 2: Seal hunting benefits Canada's economy. Statement 3: Seal hunting keeps the Harp Seal population in check. [S1]: The Arctic conditions of Canada and Alaska could and can't support a large verity of plant life. These are the regions the Inuit call home. During the harsh winters, food was scarce. Food that wasn't seal, fish, whale, narwhal, walrus, or some other Arctic mammal was hard to come by. During the other seasons of the year, other animals and plants could be consumed. Yet seals were a vital source of food during those winters. Seals provided: oil for Kudliks (vital sources of heat and light), warm and water resistant clothing, tents, tools and utensils. [S2]: Canada is currently the sixth strongest economy on earth (source: . http://www.heritage.org...). This is because of its open markets, and trade freedom. Small coastal communities that would have been abandoned for larger cities see large financial growth. To quote the Fisheries and Oceans Canada,"The current harp seal harvest is conducted as an economically sustainable activity. It can make an important contribution to the annual income of people living in rural coastal communities where other economic opportunities are limited, which may reduce outmigration to large urban centres. The loss of economic opportunities would have an important impact on people in these small communities. The seal harvest provides direct employment for over six thousand people per year on a part-time basis. Some sealers have stated that their income from sealing can represent a significant amount of their total annual income. " [S3]: The harp seal population currently numbers around 7.5 million (quote Britannica). A population above 9 million would cause competition for food and force the seals to face a much more painful death. A death by starvation or cannibalism.
People should not been posting unnecessary topics . Such as Pokemon , superheros , my lil ponys.

FINAL REMINDER: IF YOU THINK THE RESOLUTION IS FALSE, VOTE ME BECAUSE THE SIDES WERE LABELED IMPROPERLY. 1. Arguing Skills > Homework HelpMy opponent stated that she knows plenty of schools who use debate.org for homework help, I assume because she's attended plenty of schools. But whether many people use this for homework help or not, that's not the point of this site.The point of this site is to give users better arguing and debating skills, and then exhibit them against others. So maybe my opponent's plenty of schools just aren't using the site correctly, and that's why they're having so many problems.2. BusinessMy opponent forfeits this contention.3. You Can't Stop UsMy opponent forfeits this contention.4. "Some People Mean Business On This Site"False.--------------------------------------------------------------I win all contentions.Vote MassiveDump.
People should not been posting unnecessary topics . Such as Pokemon , superheros , my lil ponys.

1. It's About Arguing, Not Homework Help.My opponent believes it is the purpose of the users of debate.org to provide people who are too lazy to go to a database with information on their research projects. But that's not what debate.org is for.Debate.org was created so that people could exercise their arguing skills. Since this can be done in both a humorous and political sense equally, there's no reason to ban humorous debates.Furthermore, allowing debaters to go outside of their political comfort zone is even more beneficial to the debater by giving them a wider spectrum of issues to discuss.2. It's Good For BusinessI'd like to refer to a debate of my own, If I may.[http://www.debate.org...]This debate, within a week, surpassed the record for most views tenfold with 1.2 million views. It brought outside viewers in from the brony fandom to consider joining this site, and was more than beneficial to helping grow the debate.org community.3. They're Not Going AnywhereHumorous/Entertainment debates will never be completely gone from debate.org. Due to events like a humor debater by the name of imabench entering the debate.org hall of fame, "Applejack is Best Pony" becoming a viral sensation, and even humorists who pretend to be serious like "Anti-Atheist" or "Qopel" hitting spotlights here and there, humor is nearly as important of a quality to the debate community as political and religious arguments.Again I say. Let there be trolls, ladies and gentlemen. Let, there, be, trolls.REMINDER: I AM CON, SHE IS PRO.Vote MassiveDump.
The Russian invasion of Crimea is unjustified.

The West has done its best to destabalise Ukraine, as they have done to great effect in Syria and Libya. The Whitehouse and its allies have decided that they need to do more than just fund and arm extreme Islamists so as to order the world as they desire it.Through the US agency for international development (USAID), the USA co-funded the destabalisation in Ukraine.www.pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/The West has lead the coupe by funding ultranationalists to overthrow their legitimately elected leader. The violence has become so bad that the legitimate president Yanukovych, like many compatriots has been forced to flee to Russia for the sake of his life.Russia, with Ukraine on their border and a large population of Russians living in Ukraine, cannot allow the neo-nazi anglo-american proxy state to persist.They have without any violence entered the Ukraine and performed rudimentary operations to try and secure stability in the country.The Western media have ignored the fact that the legitimate president was overthrown by a violent coup after weeks of bloodshed by ultranational Nazi's. And after one day the new, illigitimate, self-elected prime minister of Ukraine Mr Yatsenuk is having his words beamed all around the world "Russia are invading us". As though he is the legitimate leader and the last few weeks of bloodshed and riots never happened. The West, having orchestrated the whole thing now use their controlled media to repeat this mantra every day until it legitimises conflict with Russia.The Western people, me included, will end up paying for the actions of their governments like the Nazi public in 1944. History will have little compassion and look on them like it did the Nazi public: Moronic sheep-like creatures who deserved their fate after never questioning their government or media no matter how much pain it caused the rest of the world. That though, is where the comparison ends.
The Russian invasion of Crimea is unjustified.

After pressuring President Yanukovych into not signing the EU Association Agreement, Russia then effectively offered Ukraine $15 billion as a thank you gift. However, the Euromaidan protesters refused to accept this and finally, when the bloodshed became too much to deal with, Yanukovych fled Kiev. Knowing that a democratic government would be contrary to their interests, Vladimir Putin sent troops into Crimea. They quickly occupied airports and forced Ukrainian soldiers out of military bases. Putin's justification for these provocative and illegal actions, was that he was protecting the ethnic Russians living there. Interestingly enough, that was the same reason Adolf Hitler gave when invading Sudetenland - saying the ethnic Germans there were being persecuted. Predictably, it was a lie both times. In fact, the only ethnic Russians to have been persecuted so far are the ones who showed up at a anti-war rally in Moscow. As of now, the Russians have issued an ultimatum to the Ukrainians, saying if they do not surrender by 0300 GMT, they will launch an all out assault against them. Knowing that the Ukrainian military will not give up as easily as first thought, Russia are now turning to the threat of full out war. So, to sum up, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is completely unjustified, comparable to the German invasion of Sudetenland and illegal under a 1994 treaty honouring Ukraine's territorial integrity.
The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered

Allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision would decrease unsafe drinking activity. Prohibiting this age group from drinking in bars, restaurants, and other licensed locations causes them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties where they may be more prone to binge drinking and other unsafe behavior. Traffic accidents and fatalities are most common among newly-legal drinkers, regardless of the MLDA. In 2009, the 21- to 24-year-old age group had the highest percentage of drivers in fatal crashes with blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) levels of .08 or higher " 35 percent. Any increase in traffic accidents or fatalities in 18- to 20-year-olds would be offset by a decrease for those 21 and older. MLDA 21 is largely ineffective because the majority of teens continue to consume alcohol. According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, underage drinking accounts for 17.5% ($22.5 billion) of consumer spending for alcohol in the United States. In 2006, 72.2% of twelfth graders reported drinking alcohol at some point in their lives. http://drinkingage.procon.org...
The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered

Though I'm pretty neutral on this situation, i accept the challenge of being against lowering the drinking age. First off, I do agree that lowering the drinking age would take out the "fun" of breaking the law, but if it was lowered, more kids would drink. When more kids drink, that is a bad thing. Many kids would have a beer because it's legal, and that hurts the brain in its development years. Before you are done growing is the worst time to start habits that cause mental disorders like alcohol addiction, and it starts the roots of liver failure (1). Basically the first reason why this is a bad idea is that though teenage drinking would decrease alchohal crimes, it still would increase the commonness of drinking and increase alcohal disorders. (1) http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...
The Drinking Age Should Be Lowered

18 is the age of adulthood in the United States, and adults should have the right to make their own decisions about alcohol consumption. Turning 18 entails receiving the rights and responsibilities of adulthood to vote, smoke cigarettes, serve on juries, get married, sign contracts, be prosecuted as adults, and join the military - which includes risking one's life. Lowering MLDA 21 would be good for the economy. More people would legally be able to drink in bars, restaurants, and other licensed establishments. Revenue would increase for private business owners, and greater amounts of tax revenue would be collected by the government. http://drinkingage.procon.org...
Combat quiz

Ok well id walk in to this illegal underground tournament with my head held high. Id go to shake all of their hands, only to psyche em all, thus ensuring i have a psychological upperhand. This will infuriate the weirdo known as Bryan Mullins. He will start acting iirationally. At one point , Mullins will get up in Mayweathers' face n will scream " im a fvckin cherry, pop me.' Mayweather will KO Mullins right the fvck out, thus eliminating Mullins.However, this ofcourse means Floyd gets DQd from the game, leaving me w/ only 3 round 1 fights. Pikachu: II will tell him that ive got Shredder from TMNTs number, That will scare the sh1t out of him, he will jump off a cliff n die D.Bowser: First id feed him someshrooms, when he gets real stoned, il just tell him Peach is horny for him , but im actually going to lock him in the dungeon n run off. I will then call my boy Burnout Biker from fortnite, hel pass me a rocket launcher so i can blow the castle up. K.Ren: Id lie down for him. He will be shocked but thirsty for blood having seen me drive his best bud Pikachu insane. So, hed whip out his saber, but just as hes about to strike. Triple H will come from behind n hit him over the head w/ a sledgehammer , Ren will bleed internally.N i will advance to R2 having done fvck all!
Combat quiz

6) maya the bee While maya the bee was drawing Genitals on the floor, i went from behind him, and drowned him in insecticide, after i finished him off, i noticed that their was only 3 opponents left, what happened to the 5th? 7) Icebeartheawesome ice bear gives me bait about racism against blacks, but i just rolled my eyes, grabbed him, and used him as a bowling ball to knock willow and him into the lava 9) Dicaprio while dicaprio was looking all sad and stuff, i pull put Maya the bee's blood inside him via Needle, which caused him to make strange buzzing noises, i then stab him and leave him to die. 10) Mindagger I still have no idea who the 5th opponenet is, maybe he is invisible?
Combat quiz

I didn't use any weapons, the crowd boos you for being a coward. Nonetheless, here is are next opps. 6) Maya the Bee 7) icebeartheawesome 8) Willow (Jeff Hardy) 9) DiCaprio as if he were on Shutter Island 10) Yourself, not mortal combat style, your actual self. yeh that's right boii. Beat yo self up. If you don't. you need to face Donkey Kong again, cos he survived the fall. voters vote me btw, my storytelling is wayyyyy better.
Combat quiz

"your opps are: 1) The Annoying Orange 2) Ms. Pacman 3)Adele 4)Donkey Kong 5)Grim Reaper Fandango" 1) Annyoyinng orange He treis to spit seeds at me, a bring out my pistol, which he does and then keeps making bad puns, which annoys me, Annoying orange: hey, mind dagger! oh Minddagger! Me: WHAT?! Annoying Orange: dagger! Me: I already answered you! Annoying Orange: NO! DAGGER! a giant dagger than fall from the sky, but instead of on me it falls on orange, cutting him in half. 2) Ms Pacman I simply slice her with a double lightsaber, and she dies,, the other end of my weapon slices adele's chest, killing him too 3) Donkey kong Unfortunitly, donkey kong was drunk the day of the fight, so he just yelled "BANANA SLAMMA!!!111!" and jumped off a cliff 4) Grim reaper Fandango Since i was not dead yet, he couldn't kill me because he was not allowed too, so i just shot him and he died, and i walked to see my next batch of fighters
Combat quiz

Right, this stage takes place in Brock Lesnars ranch. We start off, but both Zilla nLaalaa start making out. Baffled, we leave em to it. I just start talking to -55 abt evolution, that drives him insane . He starts ranting n raving , so i report him to Lesnar. 20 german suplexs later n hes dead. Pump comes up to me n starts trash talking. Annoyed at his verbal prowess, i cheapshot him w/ an eye poke n a low blow. I then steal his wallet. Me n shedder go have lunch, but i secretly poison him , he dies. That will do , il call a cab n run off to Bermuda, i will live happily ever after. But 1day when im relaxing, il look in to the sea, n OH MY GOD, IT CANT BE, JESUS CHRIST ITS GODZILALA, THE BABY FROM HELL!!!! LORD HAVE MERCY ON THE PEOPLES . -,, Newsreport : 68 civilians and a wolf have been reported dead in a freak event on the Bermuda coastline...
only belief is false

i am certain i have no beliefsLike I said before, knowledge and belief aren't mutually exclusive. If you're certain you have no beliefs, then you are accepting that you have no beliefs. This is the same as saying you believe you have no beliefs. I have been saying this since the start of the debate and Pro has continued to drop it.religion is a position on an imaginary claim, accepting a true claim is not belief agnostic is the i dont know position, the maybe, not yes and noReligion and agnosticism are irrelevant to the resolution. Thus, it cannot be said to give meaning to Pro's "I don't know" proposition.know=something=meaningPro last time claimed "know=physical experience(logik)", now he's saying it's just something. I think Pro is attempting to respond to my claim that a meaningless proposition is false. However, I never said we can have knowledge of meaningless entities, I said we can know they are false (since they don't propose anything). future is falseThis is a bare assertion, it doesn't refute my example.knowledge=memory=truth truth can only be in the past memory is unchanging, flawless, not false, logical, never illogicalCan only be in the past? This doesn't seem correct, as it seems we can also have knowledge about the present. Claiming memory is unchanging and flawless is a bare assertion, as I've shown that claim to be false.ConclusionI gave two arguments against the resolution. One being that to affirm the resolution is self-contradictory and the other being that beliefs aren't the only things that can be false. Pro hasn't given any argument for the resolution and never addresses my argument.Pro drops most of his arguments too. He never responded to my refutations, like: Belief and knowledge aren't mutually exclusive "Be lie" isn't a proper definition of "belief". The definition of "false" being a positivist one. How not knowing relates to belief being false. With that, let the voting begin.
only belief is false

Yet again Pro has ignored my arguments that the resolution is self-refuting and that beliefs aren't the only things that can be false. A majority of Pro's arguments (if they can be called that) are irrelevant to claiming all beliefs are false. He has yet to present any argument in favor of the resolution.i have no beliefs, i know my experience of nowIf you have no beliefs, then you don't even believe your statement. You cannot accept the very proposition that you accept nothing. Furthermore, to state you know your experience of now is to claim you accept your experiences are true. This is the same thing as claiming you believe your experiences are true.if i dont know is true, then imagining it to believe it is not true im talking about the i dont know position, maybe position "I don't know" isn't a proposition in and of itself. You have ignored this.any false answer is imaginaryAs I said before, something meaningless cannot be a true, but it also cannot be imagined.my personal physical experience of now is everything, and anywhere beyond that is the reflection of nothingThis is a restatement of your definition of false. Which is a positivist definition that I asked you to defend. You have not shown this position to be within physical experience. knowledge=memory(machine)Memory and knowledge are two different things. For example, I cannot have a memory of the future, but I know that in the future I will either eat a sandwich or not. Both cannot be true, so I know one of those two propositions will be true even though I don't have memory of such a thing. Also, memories cannot count as knowledge, as they can be come corrupt. [1][1] http://www.livescience.com...
only belief is false

Pro hasn't responded to my arguments. I extend them a second time.knowledge is truth not false, belief is false, imaginaryDo you believe that?if i dont know is true, then belief is falseNot knowing what? How does not knowing something relate to belief being false? If you don't know something, then it follows that you don't accept it as true (don't believe it). This says nothing about the truthfulness of the belief.i dont know=i have to imagine it=i can at best imagine itNot necessarily. You can not have knowledge of meaningless entities, but they cannot be imagined.false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of nowThis is logical positivism. I ask Pro to show that this definition is within his physical experience.only know is true I will also ask if you believe this. Furthermore, your belief can be about knowledge. If that knowledge is true, then so would your belief.
only belief is false

there are only 2 other options then belief, know or knowledgeThese aren't mutually exclusive. Your belief can be acceptance of knowledge. Pro's statement here is a baseless assertion.belief=be lie, as i dont know is trueI already defined belief. "Be lie" isn't proper syntax anyway, it doesn't tell us anything. Pro hasn't shown how it relates to "I dont know is true". Furthermore, "I don't know" is a statement about something. Without context of that something "I don't know" doesn't tell us anything.acceptance of reality is not belief, but i can deny realityTo accept something about reality is to believe something about it. Denying reality would still be accepting something about reality (it's non-existence).I extend arguments
only belief is false

Only: No one or nothing more besides; solely or exclusively.Belief: An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.False: Not according with truth or fact; incorrect.I contend that you cannot argue for the resolution without running into contradictionsIf belief is false, then you would have to accept the proposition that belief is false. Which is the same as saying you believe that belief is false. This is a contradiction, since you'd have to believe that your belief in the resolution is false.Furthermore, there can be propositions that are false, yet are not believed. For example, if all life in the universe died out, no one would be around to believe anything. Yet propositions would still be false even though there is no belief in the propositions. Like the proposition "There exists life in the universe."Pro gives no reason why I have to accept that everything is just belief or that imagination has bearing on external reality. I have given two arguments against the resolution, whereas my opponent has yet to fulfill his BOP.
pain is true

Something I have already pointed out - Yes, there are more than two emotions. If we were to verify the authenticity of your argument in the only two true emotions are joy and pain, I would say the burden of proof is in your corner for making such a bold claim. Which, by the way, you have done nothing to support your claim. You have merely decided to poke at my observations, and rather poorly. Furthermore, you have resorted to a character attack by name-calling, and therefore losing any credibility as a debater. I am glad the debate is over.
pain is true

No, I am arguing against the premise of your debate - The only two emotions being joy and pain. If I were to take it a step further, and read into the question concerning perhaps you intent was to relay the only two emotions which are true are joy and pain, I would say that is subject to interpretation. A quick Google search would reveal the contrary - Love and fear actually turn out to be the two which immediately pop up. Even so, when reviewing the rationale of the arguments made in those cases, I don't see scientific study utilized to back it up - so it falls into the category of opinion rather than fact. In short, experts in the field of Neuroscience disagree with you when it comes to the amount of emotions, and other research points to love and fear.. not joy and pain. However, as I said, the latter is mere opinion.
pain is true

According to research in the past, human emotion was thought to have been comprised into six different categories: Happy, surprised, afraid, disgusted, angry, and sad. Given the similarity of facial reactions when happy and surprised or disgusted and angry, the Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology from the University of Glasgow has dropped it down to four main categories - Namely combining surprised and happy and disgust with anger. Whether we opt to go with conventional or the most recent research, we are left with four to six options. Not two.
a god is not in fact possible

You keep using the word fact, but what is the meaning of it? This: Fact a thing done: as a obsolete : feat b : crime c archaic : action 2 archaic : performance, doing 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality 4 a : something that has actual existence b : an actual occurrence 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality in fact : in truth This from the Webster dictionary. So in the words of Inigo Montoya(The Princess Bride), "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means" If I need proof to prove the Lord's existence, you need to prove he doesn't What are the facts that God does NOT exist?