BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is cruel to keep animals in zoos

I accept. Pro has proposed a rather interesting argument. Pro states that it is cruel to keep animals in zoos. I disagree wholeheartedly. Firstly I would like to surface the rather grueling fact of extinction. Many animals kept in zoos are in there to preserve their particular race, when an animal(bird) etc, etc is kept in a safe, clean environment it is more likely to thrive than in the wild. Which means that in some cases, zoos are actually helping species regain their ability to carry on breeding and making bigger their race. A common argument to this is that animals can breed freely in the wild without becoming extinct. This is wrong because under the current influence of man this actually is not possible for some species, eg elephants, could become extinct as they are wanted for many things, skins, tusks and so on. Another example would be tuatara,s if it weren't for zoos and recreational parks we wouldn't ever be able to see them. Secondly i would like to bring up the matter of the public. when are the general public ever going to be able to see animals like giraffes and zebras,anywhere other than zoos? A family trip to the zoo is always one to be remembered, zoos give you an opportunity to see and sometimes even feed the animals in their natural (or very similar) environment. And anyway here is something you can't argue, there is nothing like watching two elephants get it on... Some might argue that people can go on safaris or wildlife park visits in other countries. That would be ideal, but unfortunately this is a luxury most families can not afford. Going to Africa just to see a lion is out of the question for many people...
whole world (all 210 counties) should be brought under the umbrella of a single government

Today they their needs are common and almost all of them the 196 counties that u have mentioned are struggling to solve the similar kind of problems like terrorism, political instibilty , and economic inflations so if a single government comes them it will take decisions for all there countries collectively No, we are all not going through the same problems. In fact, every country has problems unique to their own nation. They each need to individually solve these "unique" problems before we can even think about a one world government. .terrorism would be solved since the whole world is one country the no one would like to terrorise his own countryNo it wouldn't. Terrorism derives from many different things. Other forms of terrorism will exist, involving religion, ethnicity, culture. trade across the states of the whole world (that are countries now) would be liberalised...In your one world government, which I am assuming is a democracy, everybody will probably have a say. And MANY people around the world would object to liberalization. This applys to other issues too. There is no possible way we can appease every group in the world on earth. Europe has no place telling the middle east what to do. Just as the middle east should have no say in Brazils affairs. Anarchy and destruction would be within hours.and since the financial policies through out the world will remain same and so economic stability would be thereIt is just not possible to apply one policy to the whole world. While a policy might be effective in Ghana, it might destroy the economy of Panama. This is the exact opposite of economic stability. .since the world would be under a singe government political stability is obvious Not really. It seems obvious that a million agressive seccession movements would rise up, and genocide and anarchy would run rampant. You ever hear of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is what happens when you put many different ethnicitys, cultures, and religions in the same borders. I would like to write more, but I only have 4 minutes left.
whole world (all 210 counties) should be brought under the umbrella of a single government

today in this contemporary world we call our civilization global civilization , the countries have come closer to each other and the distances between them has reduced . today they their needs are common and almost all of them the 196 counties that u have mentioned are struggling to solve the similar kind of problems like terrorism, political instibilty , and economic inflations so if a single government comes them it will take decisions for all there countries collectively .terrorism would be solved since the whole world is one country the no one would like to terrorise his own country .trade across the states of the whole world (that are countries now) would be liberalised and since the financial policies through out the world will remain same and so economic stability would be there .since the world would be under a singe government political stability is obvious
Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral

Heh I made a mistake and accepted it. In any case I will argue as if I am a vegan. With that I thank Bennett for this debate, and hope that it is a productive one. I, as the rules ask, accept this debate and will provide some definitions and a summary of what I may argue. I will be arguing that eating meat is first immoral because animals are sentient beings, who are capable of making connections, and it is wrong to kill them, as it is wrong to kill humans. I will also argue that since humans can survive without meat, and that meat is often unhealthy, and unnecessary humans should abstain from eating meat. Here are some definitions, which are should be clear, but I thought them worthy to mention: 1. meat: The flesh of an animal, typically a mammal or bird, as food (the flesh of domestic fowls is sometimes distinguished as poultry): 2. unhealthy: Harmful to health. Also a tip, next time specify animal meat. I could have easily trolled you by using the definition of meat as human flesh and easily won the debate. May the best man win. Faithfully Yours, Ajabi.
Eating Meat is not Inherently Unhealthy or Immoral

This debate is specifically to debate against the strict dietary values of veganism. I ask that a person who identifies as vegan take the Con position. Round 1 is for acceptance, definitions, and also a brief paragraph on position and beliefs (not hard evidence, just explain where you will be coming from). I agree that the Standard American Diet (SAD) is unhealthy with it being a high fat, high sugar and low exercise diet. However I believe the health problems associated with meat are not because meat is inherently unhealthy, but because Americans simply over consume it. Meat can be a beneficial part of anyone's diet in moderation. In regards to the morality of meat production the process of raising and killing animals can and should be reformed to ensure it's not done in a tortuous manner. In short meat is not inherently evil.
Organized religion

Secondly, considering this is a debate centered around religion than it is safe to say that the majority of the points made will be a matter of opinion mostly. So let's begin. I'd first like to state that I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka "Mormon". So of course my argument is coming from my religious background, anyway. .. You stated that "Organized religion cannot help but "brainwash" members. " While I do have to agree that members of SOME churches tend to be more closed-minded and conservative than others, this does not mean by any stretch that religion is brain-washing people. Secondly, religion gives us something to hope for after this life. The hope of a better tomorrow, and a "reward" for all of our good deeds here on Earth; and the belief that death is not the end. It explains how we got here, why we are here, where we came from, and where we are going during and after this life. It brings peace and understanding to one's life, and enriches it's members of every denomination. Thirdly, organized religion isn't like a cult. .. yes we have commandments or "rules" to live by, but no one is going to shoot you/beat you if you don't follow them. It would be like your mother giving you a rule; you can choose whether to obey it or not, obedience is strongly encouraged but ultimately the decision falls on you. The commandments are like an instruction manual to our lives; ways to be a better individual and be kinder to others. God put them in place to help us, not hinder us. The principle of "this and only this is true" is solely based on the individual. As christians, we are taught that the only way to heaven is to be baptized and follow Christ's example and commandments. As a Mormon, I am taught that being saved isn't just a simple "once I'm baptized, I'm saved and I can do whatever I want. " I know that it is a constant perseverance everyday to be better. I don't believe that Jesus Christ died for me because that is what I have been taught, but because I know with my whole heart that it is true. Now granted, I probably wouldn't know anything about Jesus unless someone had taught me, but my point is that it is ultimately MY choice whether to accept and believe the Gospel or not. I'm a Mormon, but I am one of the most open-minded people you will ever meet. My only point in saying that, is that not every member of an organized religion is close-minded and "brainwashed. " Some are close-minded, but none are "brainwashed". I'll continue in round 2.
Organized religion

Organized religion is too structured to allow the seeking of independent beliefs and philosophies. Organized religion cannot help but "brainwash" members. With an organization forever saying this and only this is true one cannot help but be subject to the possibility of becoming "brainwashed". The religion telling one what to do, how to react, what to believe, and how to think causes an inability to examine different facts and experiences making up the individual. There is no le way for chang and evolution in structured, organized religion.
Organized religion

And second I would like to appologize for any offense from the term "brainwash" I simply couldn't think of a better way to put it. Now on to the debate. One must look at the topic of the debate. The topic is not religion per se, but ORGANIZED religion. My opponent's points actually support my arguments. My opponent states "religion gives us something to hope for after this life. The hope of a better tomorrow, and a "reward" for all of our good deeds here on Earth; and the belief that death is not the end. It explains how we got here, why we are here, where we came from, and where we are going during and after this life. It brings peace and understanding to one's life, and enriches it's members of every denomination. " I will conceed that RELIGION can do this. However, religion does not have to be attained in a church or organized setting. If my opponent or any one for that matter chooses to believe the LDS religion that is their own choice. So i will conceed that religion can be good. Therefore the goal of a religion is not inherently to "Brainwash" people, it is an inherent outcome. " As a Mormon, I am taught that being saved isn't just a simple "once I'm baptized, I'm saved and I can do whatever I want. " I know that it is a constant perseverance everyday to be better. " That is what my opponent is saying they are taught. Based on the information presented in this round, the only information that can be judged on, to be saved one must be baptized and continue to perserve everyday to be better. The LDS religion is stating that "this and only this" is the path to salvation. Following that, while the religion might not be trying to "brainwash" people, it still is preaching a "no exceptions" view. If religion is defined as the pursuit of salvation, then it is not a bad thing. Each person is an individual with individual philosphies and beliefs. When an ORGANIZED religion says that only specific beliefs true then they are "brainwashing". Finally I would like to ask my opponent in a cross examintion style: Do you believe the Islamic religion?
Gay marriage

RE: THE GOVERONMEN SHOULD NOT ACKNOWLAGE ANY MARRIAGE I don"t think you can just change the meaning of "ban" to "not acknowledge". That isn"t what the debate was intended for. Either way, the government doesn"t have the constitutional authority to "not acknowledge" gay marriage because that would violate the equal protection clause. RE: THE GOVERONMENT ISN'T GIVEN THE POWER TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE We are talking about legal definitions. Let"s not conflate separate issues. RE: NOT MANY PEOPLE ARE GAY Yes, you shouldn"t be able to ban the color red from being worn. This helps my argument more than yours because it"s not your right to infringe on other people"s rights. If someone wants to force ice cream parlors to stock manure, then they are infringing on the parlor owner"s rights. If someone wants to ban manure from ice cream parlors, they shouldn"t be allowed to infringe on rights that way either unless there is a health concern which there may be in that case. Most people were bothered by interracial couples, but that doesn"t mean that interracial marriage should be banned. Most people in some countries even think gays should be executed. RE: THE MAJORITY DEFINE MARRIAGE IN A TRADITIONAL WAY Again, we are talking about whether to have a legal ban on gay marriage. What difference does it make if people think of a word as having a certain meaning? Who would be hurt by changing a legal definition of marriage to include same sex? RE: ACKNOWLADGING GAY MARRIAGES SERVES NO BENEFIT; RE: WHY PAY MORE TAXES? Some benefits: Hospital visitation during an illness, the option of filing a joint tax return, access to family health coverage, US residency and family unification for partners from another country, bereavement leave and inheritance rights, child custody rights, spousal or child support, equitable division of property, adoption, etc. RE: MORAL DECAY How is it harmful for children to be accepting of gays? What about children who are harmed because they are gay? RE: EQUALITY Firing someone because they are lazy makes sense. Firing someone because they are GAY/straight/christian/atheist/black/white, even though they are doing a great job, would be discrimination. You can"t choose who you"re attracted to, and even if you could, so what? If blacks could choose to be white, would that make it okay to discriminate against blacks? No. RE: THE DOWNFALL OF AMERICA Your argument here is that eliminating all marriage would mean no inequality. Again, I am talking about banning gay marriage, not all marriage. And either way, transitioning to a system of no marriage because of prejudice towards gays, means that this legal change is a result of discrimination. If you don"t want to get gay married, then don"t. Millions of people shouldn"t be treated as second class citizens when they aren't hurting anyone, just because you think it's gross for two women or two men to love each other.
Gay marriage

Let me boil down all of your arguments. Also, let me know if I am mistaken. You suggest that: 1. The government should ban all marriage, therefore gay marriage too. -That wasn"t the point of the debate, and you sound like you support straight marriage much more than gay marriage, so I don"t think you agree with yourself here. Either way, I will note that marriage provides benefits to society, so we should have the option. Also, later you suggest that if most people support something, then it should be law. Most people want government to recognize marriage, so by your own standard, marriage should be recognized by government. 2. The government doesn"t have the power to redefine marriage. -We are talking about legal marriages, so yes they do. Congress created the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. According to the Supreme Court, state bans on gay marriage are in violation of that amendment. 3. Not many people are gay, so why not ban it? -I"m not sure what the argument is here. Things that are uncommon should be banned? 4. Most people oppose it, so it should be banned. -Your own second source shows that 60% of Americans support it, so this is not true. If your point is that the government should obey the majority, then that means they should keep gay marriage legal. You proved yourself wrong. Even if most people did oppose it, so what? The majority shouldn"t discriminate. 5. Legal marriage doesn"t help gay people, because they can still be together either way. -There are legal and social benefits to gay marriage. 6. Why would we need the government to acknowledge this marriage just so we can pay more taxes? -So gay people can get the benefits that come with marriage. 7. It creates moral decay. -How? Discriminating against gay people is what causes harm and unfairness. You said yourself that gays can be together either way, so what harm does it cause? 8. It has nothing to do with equality. -Benefits denied based on gender and orientation means there is inequality. 9. Gay marriage legalization will lead to the fall of America. -You"ll need to provide a lot of support for a huge claim like that. Even if it were to happen, it is inevitable. Gay marriage is here to stay, so it"s pretty pointless to try to ban it.
Gay marriage

Bs"dEnable for this debate to make any sense whatsoever, we must first define "bann," which as stupid as it may sound, is very crucial. Most people supporting a "bann," are not entailing a "bann," but rather simply a lack of enorsement, which is something completely different. However, since in most cases "banning" gay marriage is used to refer to the goveronment not acknowledging gay marriage, I will thus argue that the goveronment should not acknowladge gay marriage. THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTThe US Federal Goveronment was never given the power to acknowladge any marriage, let alone forcefully tamper with the definitions set up by general consensus. What does this mean? Well fist of all it means that technically all marriages should be "banned" since the goveronment isn't given the power to acknowladge any of them, but secondly, and more importantly, the goveronment is never given the power to define or redefine marriage. And according to the Tenth Ammendment, this power should be given to the states respectively, or to the people, and in this case no state to my knowledge has defined or redefined marriage, thus this power is reserved for the people, 62 % of whhome support traditional marriage. {1}IT REALLY ISN'T NECESSARYWhy do we need to acknowladge gay marriage? Only 3.8% of Americans identify as LGBT {2}, so why should we redefine marriage, contrary to the will of 62% of the population to conform to a tiny 4%'s fringe lifestyle? Furthermore, I don't see how a peice of paper helps them at all, if they want to get married (i.e. pretend to be married), they can just move in with eachother- they don't even need a pastor, thy can get married by their next door neighbor- Joe. In Karaism we just sighn a contract and that's it, so why would we need the goveronment to acknowladge this marriage just so we can pay more taxes?CONCLUSIONThis whole "gay marriage" bandwagon is complete nonsense, it is nothing more than a cultural and political ploy to create moral decay in our already decaying society, and masscarading this decay as "new" or "trendy," or "equality," when in reality it is not new and has nothing to do with equality. Fact is this nonsense hass appeared throught history, ad it always seems to go along with the fall of a civilisation; “as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensating to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World {3}I see no good reason to endorse what you may call a "death omen," for America.{1}. http://www.thenewamerican.com...{2}. http://www.gallup.com...{3}. http://www.goodreads.com...
Word debate

Here is my word: Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia Definition: Fear of long words.[1] How ironic isn't it? Use in a sentence: Patient: "Doctor I am scared of really long words!" Doctor: "Hmmm, I think you have Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia" Patient: "AHHHHH!!!" [1] = http://phobialist.com...
Opponent picks topic.

The cutlass is the most practical and effective personal weapon one could own in a zombie apocalypse. I alter it to 'The cutlass is, by far, the most effective weapon in a zombie apocalypse'. I am con. We are arguing that it is the most effective weapon for the AVERAGE user to prevent loopholes such as 'it is the most effective weapon to me'. The weapon need not be practical. DEFINITION Cutlass: A cutlass is a short, broad sabre or slashing sword, with a straight or slightly curved blade sharpened on the cutting edge, and a hilt often featuring a solid cupped or basket-shaped guard. It was a common naval weapon. [1]By far: by a great amount. (From Google search (type 'define (word you want to define here))). Effective: adequatetoaccomplishapurpose;producingtheintendedorexpectedresult [2] (in this case, the most POWERFUL). Weapon: An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword. [3]Zombie: the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose. [4]Apocalypse: an event involving destruction or damage on a catastrophic scale. (From Google search (type 'define (word you want to define here))). [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] . http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[4] . http://dictionary.reference.com...\ARGUMENTCutlasses, are definitely not the most effective weapon in a zombie apocalypse because of many reasons. Machine guns are much more effective, being able to provide a fatal shot with their power if they hit the target's head. Machine guns can also shoot much faster than a cutlass can swing, so the number of bullets, each delivering a fatal shot strongly outweighs the little cutlass, which could be destroyed in seconds. Each bullet, considering the number of zombies, can easily hit at least one zombie. Imagine you holding a cutlass, and thousand of zombies around you. Is it really effective? Of course not.
Opponent picks topic.

Thatnk you, Mastery, for providing this opportunity for an enjoyable debate. Given the strictness of the rules that would otherwise push the outcome far in the poster's favor, all of the topics on my list will be in a fairly similar vein, and will be topics that I am very comfortable with.Here are your options, and I hope you choose wisely! :)1. The Japanese katana is a superior weapon to the Italian longsword.2. The average Japanese Samurai would have easily defeated the average Italian Knight in a duel.3. Pre-rifle firearms were superior to bows as weapons. 4. Swords hold a significant combat advantage over spears. 5. The cutlass is the most practical and effective personal weapon one could own in a zombie apocalypse.6. As compared to the arming sword, the scimitar is a superior weapon.7. As compared to the katana, the kriegsmesser is a superior weapon.8. As compared to the longsword, the sabre is a superior weapon.9. As compared to the sabre, the rapier is a superior weapon.10. The nodachi is a superior weapon to the zweihander.
Gov Charlie Baker needs to start calling State of Emergencies during storms/blizzards

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker never calls state of emergencies during blizzards/nor"easters and puts Massachusetts residents safety at risk. Private employers will not close and make their employees come in unless a state of emergency is called. All of my coworkers got stuck yesterday, an MBTA bus got stuck and people had to push the bus. There was over a foot of snow, no one should have been out besides plows so they had room to clear the streets without having stuck cars everywhere. It was a disaster yesterday and a state of emergency should have been called. He needs to start calling them during storms so Massachusetts residents can feel safe.