BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nonhuman animals should have the same rights as human beings

I am starting this debate because the one started by Trans4mers434 on the exact same topic died down, and I would happily take his/her place as the Pro. Oh, and for fairness' sake I'll say that I only took a glance at BuggyB's arguments on the previous debate, so I haven't had any extra time to analyse them.FORMAT (I'm not looking to do this debate super formally, as this is my first debate here, but I do like a bit of structure.)Rd. 1 Pro: Rules/DefinitionsRd. 1 Con: AcceptanceRd. 2 Pro: Opening argumentsRd. 2 Con: Opening argumentsRd. 3 Pro: Rebuttals/argumentsRd. 3 Con: Rebuttals/argumentsRd. 4 Pro: Rebuttals/closing statementsRd. 4 Con: Rebuttals/closing statementsKEY DEFINITIONSAnimal:noun. any member of the kingdom Animalia including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation [1]Human being:noun. a person distinguished from other animals or representing the human species (Homo sapiens sapiens). [2]Human:noun. a human being. [3]Nonhuman:adjective. not (a) human [4]Right or rights:noun. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.:e.g. “women’s rights” [5][1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
Islam Is not a religion of violence and terror.

Alright, So let me begin by showing what is acceptable in islam in regards to violence. God (when I say God I am refering to Allah) commands his followers to not take a life that is foribidden except by legal right as it states in surah 6:151 and surah 17:33. So when is it not forbidden to take a life in islam? - In self defense -Against persecution and Oppressionas it states in surah 22:39-40 Fighting is no longer allowed if:-The enemy offers peace-If they cease from persecuting and attacking youas it states in surah 4:90 Now let's see what ISIS has been doing. -Isis is killing those who have not clearly and directly transgressed against islam as it is forbidden to transgress as it states in surah 2:190-Isis is doing suicide bombings which are against the quran as stated in surah 4:29-Isis is forcing people to convert to islam or die which is against the quran as it states in surah 2:256 [1]We can see these clear contradictions in the teachings of God and the actions of ISIS and let's solidify the fact that ISIS is not islamic.- They bombed the second holiest site in islam [2]-More than 70000 clerics have issued a fatwa against isis [3]With these, you can see how and why the Islamic community is almost entirely against the islamic community as they have clealry violated several teachings of the quran and have attacked almost indiscriminately including holy sites. I shall await your rebuttal.Sources: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;[1]http://occupydemocrats.com...;[2]https://unitedhumanists.com...;[3]
SeaWorld

Ok. I am not onyx930, but I am his friend, and he is letting me post this round because he is an idiot and yes, his grammar is in fact bad. First off, I would like to say that I completely agree with you. Sea world is a cruel, horrible place where animals are cruelly enslaved and tortured and made to do tricks for the entertainment of Americans who probably don't even appreciate the animals and are only worried about how fast they can get out of there to go stuff there faces with cheeseburgers. I, in fact am probably a poor choice to write this argument because there is no argument to be made. In truth, i'm not entirely sure why my idiot friend excepted this debate in the first place.
The US is an international bully, and NATO is a gang of thugs!

The US has been viewed world wide as a the world's most advanced and righteous country. And under that assumption they go around the world harassing and interfering in the business of other less powerful countries, namely Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the past Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, etc. In the 50's-80's the US fought against communism, in the 00's the US now fights against terrorism. The US leads us to believe that they are the upholders of peace and justice, while they are the ones who spend $666 billion USD annually for their military. This is six times the amount the next big spender China invests in their military. Furthermore, the US is not a great example of freedom, human rights, or democracy. As the US runs a fixed two party system, which is only one party better than a one party dictatorship. Suppose I enter a buffet and was offered two types of foods only, naturally we would not call that a buffet. And naturally the US is not really a democracy, because most of the time both parties give the voters limited choice. Furthermore, the RECENT human rights abuses commited in Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay further stain the US 'already imperfect human rights record. The US sets rigourous control on nuclear stockpiling, sanctioning any country that is not related to NATO who even dares to research nuclear technology, when they the US themselves have stockpiled over 12,000 warheads in their arsenal. Having military bases stationed all over Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Korea, Japan etc. The US military's reach is global, and they are ready to intervene on any country's behalf if and when they choose to. The world is a schoolyard, and the US is just a bully, and NATO is a gang of international thugs.
Should Children be able to compete in Beauty Pageants

There are many different ways for people to gain self confidence. Beauty pageants encourage children to grow up thinking that they always need to approval of others. It is not self confidence that is displayed in beauty pageants, instead it is children standing on a stage asking for approval from others. If children grow up in these sort of situations they become too obsessed with what other people think of them. So what happens when a child loses one of these pageants? Because they have not been raised with the appropriate level of self motivation they never have the chance to learn how to deal with rejection, this means when they are rejected (in any situation) they find it a lot harder to move forward. Unfortunately you have completely missed the point of my analogy. I was not stating that girls become addicted to beauty patents, I was simply saying that sometimes things that people love are not really good for them. Since it is my view that beauty pageants are not good for children, this makes beauty pageants the same as the drugs that need to be taken away from drug addicts. Having good mental health is incredibly important for anyone, but is especially good for girls when they are in their teenage years. Mental health is not just simply about what people think of themselves visually, it is also about how they think of the sort of person they are. Often children who compete in pageants will eventually grow out of that stage and mature enough to want to achieve something better. But because they have been raised in an environment where they are told that their most important attribute is their looks, they will often find it hard to find something else they can do well, which means that they often can feel shallow and inadequate if they don't succeed. Overall beauty pageants serve no useful purpose to the appropriate raising of children. Therefore I think that it is clear that there no absolutely no reason why children should be allowed to compete in beauty pageants.
Should Children be able to compete in Beauty Pageants

If a child was raised, vain, greedy and selfish, Then that is the way they were raised! But beauty only helps a little bit, if you ask a judge, they wont judge these children by their face, they will judge them by their confidence and categorical talent. You can not comment on CATEGORICAL TALENT, we all have gifts the kids choose what they present. A beauty pageant helps boost confidence and self esteem. How can you go through with life preparing for something which needs extreme confidence. You cannot even stand without your nervous system starting to burn. Your analogy does not signify anything but addicts. A girl who competes in pageants will not turn into an addict. Even if I felt this was correct, beauty pageant (presently) are legal, but are drug dealers? (Who deal with cocaine/heroin etc.) If I were to read this, I would be able to understand the complete difference. The MENTAL health, they can believe what they WANT, and if they believe in this then they believe they are pretty and will be able to walk straight through life with no problem. If you tell someone they are FAT, or UGLY, then they will have a problem.
Should Children be able to compete in Beauty Pageants

A beauty pageant is the least suitable place for a child to be a child. Children should be in an environment where they are taught that their bodies are theirs and not something that can be bought. Some beauty pageants actually give cash prizes to children for allowing a group of adults to stare at their bodies while they smile and wave. Beauty Pageants are like prostitution except without the sex. Creepy men pay young girls money so that they can see their bodies. Children should not feel pride for what they do during these pageants. Pride comes from taking something that you are not very good at and putting hard work into making yourself better. Many of the girls who participate in beauty pageants where born looking the way they do, and have decided that instead of doing something that might actually be good for their mental and physical health, such as working hard at improving their results in school, they are just going to do something that is so much easier and doesn't require any work to do. What those girls have is not pride it is vanity. I disagree with your statement about not being able to change a child. I think that a child's personality is entirely dependent on the way that they were raised. Children who are raised within the beauty pageant community are raised in a way that leads to vanity and selfishness. I was using the drugs as an analogy. You see in your first statement you said that if you take away beauty pageants you take away something that the girls really love doing. I compared that to a drug addict, just because a drug addict thinks that they really need and that they love their drugs doesn't mean that it is best to just give them cocaine. That logic is insane. Beauty Pageants are not good for the mental health of any child. They teach children to not care about the importance of keeping your body as something that is sacred. They teach children that it is all right for people to stare and judge them based on how skinny, or pretty they are.
Should Children be able to compete in Beauty Pageants

I do believe that some very interesting points have been raised about the wants and needs of children, which I must admit are arguments that I have not heard before. However what you have stated is just like saying that it is alright for a child to take drugs simply because they feel that it is the most important thing in their life. The beauty industry promotes an unrealistic ideal for a young women (and men) to have. I have known children who have been raised doing pageants their whole lives and they are often incredibly vain, selfish, and unaware of their place in the world. Yes some children will always perform better in certain areas, some children will do very academically while others will perform better in sports, and some children find it hard to discover their true talents. However it is very wrong for a child to grow up thinking that the only thing that they are ever going to be good at is strutting about on a stage exploiting their bodies. Children do not understand the consequences of their actions, they are not aware that Beauty Pageants are often followed closely by pedophiles, who love the idea that they can take pictures of young children in a place where it is perfectly legal to do so. Children should not be allowed to do beauty pageants.
Should Children be able to compete in Beauty Pageants

You are welcome to LOSE. Beauty pageants are the only chances for academically suffering girls. Boys play football; take that away from them" NOT A GOOD IDEA. Taking that away from them is like talking away their lives. I love science, if you take that away from me, I will throw a hissy fit right on this spot, if I were in love with pageants I would do the same. Girls who may be not good at maths, English, History, Geography, by standing on stage keeps their little mind happy. It is the one chance they have in life. Imprison these girls in a chamber with no soul, look at them, straight into their eyes and say "I wanted this". You will feel guilty for the rest of your life. Think about what you love in life, and imagine it dumped into a trash bag and down the garbage shoot! HERE!! My point is clear.
should mitt romeny be the next president of the united states

my opponent has said a poor argument he fails to state any of obamas mistakes and has failed to say what obama has done worse than mitt romeny at millatary defence if you think that chaching osama bin laden is a bad thing. thenn that is a relevent arguement cause president barack obama has done a very good job in my opinon he has done the one thing that we went to afganastan for to take care of bin laden. now one might say that mitt romeny is puting lots of money into millatary but obama is puting his money into tech well mitt romeny can put all the money he wants and just by banetts but that wont inprove our milatary we need better tech to do this so ounce agiain I tell you vote con
I dissaprove of baptism as an infant or toddler

Baptism: (in the Christian Church) the religious rite of sprinkling water onto a person's forehead or of immersion in water, symbolizing purification or regeneration and admission to the Christian Church. In many denominations, baptism is performed on young children and is accompanied by name-giving. If you are baptized, then you have been washed free from sins, declaring your love and respect to God, and symbolizing the beginning of a new life. However, they don't let them choose their faith.
Young Earth Creation is a Scientifically probable explanation of the Universe.

I'll address my opponent's argument point for point. Luckily, this won't take too long. I shall firstly ask here that my opponent should double and triple-check his sources from now on, as many of his points seem to be based on misconceptions. Blue StarsMy opponent's source states that Eta Carinae, not blue stars, have a lifetime of a few million years, which is accurate, given that Eta Carinae is well known for being extremely unstable and a short-lived star for its kind[1]. Most stars surivive for as long as a few hundred million years in this form[2], but even so, a blue star is an incredibly short stage in its life. Also, my opponent states that I necessarily believe that the universe is 13 billion years old. I state this is a strawman to create a dichotomy, so that if the world isn't 13 billion years old, then it is 6000 years old, which my opponent has to prove. Even with this point conceded (which it is not), then my opponent is not proving his case, but actually needs to rebut this for his argument to continue.Magnetic field of the earth.I'll be very blunt: my opponent has produced no argument for this, and instead just cited a blatantly bias source. In turn, I'll refer my opponent to the in depth rebuttal of Barnes' "Magnetic Field Argument", which states how the calculations are flawed, the study itself impossible, and the conclusion invalid[3].DNA MutationsMy opponent needs to rebut his own argument again here: his citation states the average DNA mutation is now thought to be, instead once every 6000 years, once every 1200 possibly. Not certainly, not probably, but only possibly. This is not an argument: this is picking and choosing facts, and my opponent needs to justify why what a minority of scientists thinks is right, rather than avoid defence of the premise.Ocean SedimentAgain, I feel there is, in fact, little reason to even address this point. It promotes the idea that the earth is at least 62 million years old. My opponent's citation stating the earth is 6000 years old also does not exist: the link is broken. However, the original study by Morris and Parker found the earth to be 260 million years old, even if we disregard the fallacy of their work. I shall quote Cook to conclude this point:"The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans."[4]To conclude my opponent has only made a single argument which comes close to the 6-10 thousand year period he needs to justify his age of the earth, possibly two if he posts a successful link. Almost all the arguments have been fallacious. All the arguments have lacked any real substance to them. I await my opponent to post his final three justifications for a young earth.1 - http://digitaljournal.com...2 - http://jumk.de...;3 - http://www.talkorigins.org...;4 - Cook, M. A. 1966. Prehistory and earth models. Max Parrish & Co., Ltd., London. 353 pp.
Young Earth Creation is a Scientifically probable explanation of the Universe.

In the words of Einstein: "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough! ", but I shall allow my opponent ten attempts to prove creationism. This is to stop "gish galloping", that is, an excessive spamming of arguments, in the hope that I shall be unable to answer the vast array of "proofs", and therefore not fulfil my burden. Also, I look forwards to the lack of the term "evolution" being used following this round. However, I state the Burden of Proof is not shared. My opponent has the whole burden. I simply have to show that my opponent has not fulfiled his burden of proof, and refute his claims (he says as much in his post). This means I have the burden of rejoiner, and my opponent has the burden of proof. That is, if I do not adequately refute all my opponent's proofs, then my opponent has won the debate. I wish to expand on the scientific method slightly, in order to give more clarity for those who do not understand it. "The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory. "[1]Also, of course, no semantic traps i. e. using words in their less known meanings, to exploit and decieve debaters. An example is "public funding to the police should be increased", and referring to "the police" as The Police, a band in the 80s. In order for my opponent to fulfil his burden of proof, he must show simply that the world most likely existed six thousand years ago, give or take a few minellia. My opponent's argument must not only be valid, but likely as well. I await my opponent's opening argumentation to the debate.1 - . http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...;
Young Earth Creation is a Scientifically probable explanation of the Universe.

My opponent will attempt to prove that YEC is not probable explanation using the scientific method. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (www. merriam–webster. com) the Scientific Method is: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses This debate will not discuss alternate explanations (such as Darwinian Evolution). (I hope to demonstrate how Evolution is scientifically flawed in a future debate but it would make this debate too vast in scope to adequately cover all the information). For the purposes of this debate we shall assume Young Earth Creation is described in the Biblical Account. However I believe that there are numerous "flawed" creation accounts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. I look forward to an informative and mature debate.
The Evidence Shows Jesus Historically Existed

As far as the (allegedly) historical person Jesus is concerned, I'm not absolutely convinced that he never existed, but I do not believe (as Pro has claimed) that there is strong evidence to suggest that he did. I believe the onus is on Pro to demonstrate strong (rather than undeniable) evidence to believe in the existence of the Jesus described in the Bible. I understand that his divinity or otherwise is not the subject of this debate.
American music vs foreign music

Recently I had an "Israeli music vs foreign music" contest: . http://www.debate.org... I enjoyed it quite a bit, so I will be making a sequel. In this debate, I shall be posting American songs and my opponent will be posting foreign songs in response. Rules:1. I will post one "angry" song, one "sad" song, one "happy" song, and one "romantic" song. My opponent should do the same and the song style must match whatever song they are responding to.2. Each of my opponent's songs must be of a different region or cultural influence. What these will be is up to him/her.3. My opponent's musical pieces must be songs (not compositions or beats). Song definition: . http://en.wikipedia.org...4. English translated lyrics must be posted with the song. If the translating software does a bad job (or if the original lyrics cannot be found) my opponent is given a pass.5.