BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans Are Animals

All of your arguments reference things that come with a higher intelligence. I am not denying we are smarter. We have ethics and more emotions simply because we are more social, along with a higher intelligence and learning capability. However, other species have shown all of these traits, just on a lower scale because they are not as social or intelligent. However, some primates and cetaceans do have interesting social structures and a high intelligence, just not to our level. The only reason our species has survived and become dominant across the planet is due to intelligence, because we are physically inferior to other creatures. However, all of the things you listed which make us uniquely human are also found in animals, just at a lower level. Humans also have more instinctual and reflexive behaviors than you would think. https://onekindplanet.org... https://www.livescience.com... https://evolutionnews.org... https://listverse.com...
Humans Are Animals

Talking about weapons, they were developed only through research and development by an organised group of humans, tell me have you ever seen any animal use any weapons except for what nature has already provided them with. Modern neuroscience has uncovered many differences between humans and animals: 1) The Theory of Mind is the unique ability of humans to predict another's feelings and emotions. It has been proved to be a unique skill at the disposal of humans. 2) Episodic memory helps us retain the memory of a event which may have happened very long ago. It is human as it involves a mix of self and subjective time. 3) Mammals, birds and some other animals have a set of six basic emotions listed by Ekman: anger, fear, disgust, joy, sadness and surprise. However humans in addition to these six basic feelings also feel guilt, shame, pride, honor, awe, interest, envy, nostalgia, hope, despair, contempt and many others. These feelings further regulate our social behaviour making it the most complex of all species on the earth. 4)Empathy is defined as the capacity to feel what another person is feeling from their own frame of reference. It is a well-established fact that many animals react to distress by other animals by showing signs of distress themselves. However, this does not seem to represent true empathy as defined above, but a genetically encoded stress response in anticipation of harm. Since empathy requires feeling what the other person is feeling from their own frame of reference, it seems to require theory of mind. 5)Compassion is currently thought to be different from empathy because it involves many other parts of the brain. It seems to be associated with complex cultural and cognitive elements. Therefore, it seems safe to assume that animals are not able to feel compassion. 6)Although animals do communicate with each other using sounds, signs and body language, human language is a qualitative leap from any form of animal communication in its unique ability to convey factual information and not just emotional states. 7)Esthetic sense or the appreciation of beauty also seems to be uniquely human. Of course, animals can produce great beauty in the form of colorful bodies, songs and artful behavior. What seems to be lacking is their ability to appreciate and value that beauty beyond stereotypical mating and territorial behaviors. Even attempts to teach chimps to produce art by drawing have largely failed. 8)Ethics is the ability to appreciate fairness, justice and rights. It is at the very core of our ability to form stable societies and to cooperate to achieve common goals. It depends on theory of mind (which allows us to "put ourselves in somebody else"s shoes"); on social emotions like guilt, shame, pride and contempt; on empathy and compassion, and on cultural heritage. Lacking all those mental abilities, animals have no sense of ethics. . https://speakingofresearch.com...
Humans Are Animals

Again, humans are more intelligent than other animals. However, that does not put us in a different class of existence than they are in. Also, because we don't act as violent as other carnivorous and omnivorous species because we don't need to. We don't need to go out and hunt, and if we do, we generally do it for sport, though some people do hunt for survival. Even then, we use weapons simply because we are not physically capable of killing our prey with just our bear hands. Shooting the animal would be a lot easier than trying to wrestle it to the ground. We are also not the only animal to develop "mercy." https://www.livescience.com... We just gave it a name due to our higher social skills and intelligence than other species. We are more intelligent and social than other species, but not necessarily more sapient. Again, lots of traits we consider unique to humans occur in other species, but are just amplified in us.
Humans Are Animals

Humans are more then simply animal beings. We are sentinent beings who have actually understood the scale of nature and it's capabilities. We are the first species to exhibit the quality of mercy amongst all the billion species present on the earth. One does not see a lion leaving its prey alone or showing qualities of mercy. Humans are also the first to resolve to vocal arguments. Animals usually ascertain their superiority by shows of brutality and violence, we humans on the other hand have resorted to an actual vocal system of debate. Average human iq is between 90 to 110 points whereas your average primate rarely reaches 95 iq. I would also like to bring up the fact that all the modern marvels in the world are due to the ingenuity and different evolutionary traits nature has granted us rendering the human race superior to animals. I would like to thank my opponent for presenting me an opportunity to debate on this topic. Thank You :)
Humans Are Animals

I believe it is a fact that humans are animals. Most people would agree on this, but some deny it for whatever reason. First, lots of behaviors and traits we consider unique to humans are not actually as special as we think. Some may claim we are not animals because animals run on instinct. However, although that is true, we too run on instinct, just rely less on it because we are more intelligent than most other species. For example, your fight/flight response is pure instinct. Your certain urges are instinctual. http://www.zo.utexas.edu... Second, other things humans have, like emotion, intelligence, and social groups, while still unique to our species, appear in a similar manner in other species as well. For example, chimps have figured out how to use stone-age tools such as spears and sticks. While not near as intelligent as humans, chimps are still smart creatures. The thing is, if you think about it, we are not as smart as we think we are. Our social structure is what has allowed technology to advance in an amazing manner in humans. One person may spend half their life discovering something, and then in a short time frame, showing it to another person. That person may go on to advance the discovery or use it to build something. Soon, we have technology advancing each generation because we are able to quickly learn knowledge from the past, and apply it to the future. Other animals, due to a different social structure, and somewhat lower intellect, cannot. That does not mean we are not animals. It just means we are our own defined species, with our unique intelligence level and social structure. Other traits that supposedly make us different from animals include the ability to have complex communication with one another, AKA language, religion, and emotion. However, all of these have also been found to be in other species, although animal languages are much simpler than any human language. https://www.psychologytoday.com... https://news.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.scienceonreligion.org...
Disney is the best ever

Well, I'd like to say thank you for your kindness and your conduct throughout this debate. Whilst Wikipedia is a great source of information it can sometimes be wrong. However, Pharrell's song is in the top 20 in the UK chart, and DM2 was released last year, and has been at the #1 spot three times. If Frozen is your case study for argument, that was released this year and it had peaked at #11 and is now at #21. The song tends to predominantly attract younger females. Have a read of this article: http://listverse.com... I don't have anything against Disney. I just don't think it is the best movie production company. Take a look at this fact: http://www.imdb.com... "Warner Bros has Won More Awards Than Every Other Studio Combined" That's all I have to say now, bye.
Disney is the best ever

Granted. However, whilst Let it Go is quite catchy, it also metaphorically drills my head in (a lot of the public will agree). Also, the link doesn't work. On the subject of movie scores. Happy, by Pharrell Williams, which features in the film Despicable Me 2 (produced by Universal Studios), has had the following certifications: Australia 7" Platinum Austria (IFPI Austria)Gold Belgium (BEA)Platinum Canada (Music Canada)5" Platinum Denmark (IFPI Denmark) 3" Platinum Germany (BVMI)2" Platinum Italy (FIMI)3" Platinum Mexico (AMPROFON)Platinum+Gold New Zealand (RMNZ) 4" Platinum Spain (PROMUSICAE)Platinum Sweden (GLF)3" Platinum Switzerland (IFPI Switzerland)Platinum United Kingdom (BPI)2" Platinum United States (RIAA)4" Platinum [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...(Pharrell_Williams_song)] Demi Lovato's song, Let it Go, has had the following certifications. Australia (ARIA) New Zealand (RMNZ) United States (RIAA) Finally, I think it's very irrational for you to say 'Disney is the best'. It depends on opinion, and you have very unfeasible reasoning.
Disney is the best ever

You are saying that Disney is the best and everything else sucks. 1. This is a very closed-minded statement. Reconsider your argument. 2. Disney is very good. There are a lot of films by Disney. However, there are other firms. If everything else sucked, Disney would be a monopolist of the film market. It does not. No company has a monopoly in the global film market. Exhibit 2A Warner Bros. has the largest market share in the studio market: http://www.boxofficemojo.com... 3. Disney has not won an Oscar in the 21st Century. Exhibit 3A This list shows that none of the Oscar winning films in the past 13 years have been won by a Disney studios. http://www.boxofficemojo.com...
Is technology affecting the way children learn

I thank jaygc415 for the debate. I certainly enjoyed reflecting on this subject. I feel it is a topic that does not get as much attention as other debate subjects like global warming, abortion, gun control, etc. I can't help but wonder if my opponent intended on completing this debate or this is just another spam account someone needed to boost their real account's voting record... hmm... Well, I guess that's to be expected with an amateur website.
Is technology affecting the way children learn

Well, that was disappointing. Pro used the example of kids (like him/her) being on Debate.org as evidence that technology is affecting the way young people learn in a positive way. Yet, Pro forfeited round 2. This certainly implies just the opposite. Anyway, as a father of two, I can offer my own expert witness that the best, most substantial and wholesome learning involves technology in a minimal way if at all. I can see that the overuse of technology is a huge temptation for parents and teachers, and sadly, it becomes more of a form of entertainment than a learning experience.
Is technology affecting the way children learn

Thanks for the opportunity to have a friendly debate on child learning. Good luck! The title of this debate is a little confusing. Of course technology affects the way children learn. I hope that is not the debate. But from Pro's first round statements, it seems like the debate is that all technology is a help to children and the more parents expose their kids to will only improve things. I am definitely Con to this idea. Pro's first statement is an absolute one and is false: "No technology is not hurting the way children are learning." Just two children impaired by technology would completely unfound the above statement. Hopefully Pro meant children in general are not significantly hurt in their learning process by all of the technology around them. Lets be more concise, it makes debating easier. It is certainly true that advances in science and technology have improved learning, see Pro's example about microscopes. Not only can we talk to kids about bacteria and viruses, but we can now have them prepare their own slides and see the microbes themselves. Technology, however, does not aid in many types of learning. For instance, hand-writing/cursive, reason/philosophy, reading comprehension/speed, mental math, etc. are all areas of learning that technology really has no appropriate place in the learning process and if involved technology would only distract from the main purpose of the learning. If we abandoned all types of learning that did not involve some sort of tech then we would be doing many children a huge disservice in the most basic areas of learning. Screen time is also becoming a serious health issue. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...
cell phones in school

I think that phones should be allowed for many reasons but one is that I live in New York City and some of my friends live in big cities also. So my point? Well most of us have to take a bus to high school and or any other school. And not a school bus, public transport- Subway, bus, taxi. Some kids in my school like in Manhattan which means there are some unsafe neighborhoods. My sister who is now in college, when we lived in Manhattan she almost got jumped a few times. Luckily we have some spare money and we were able to have phones and if she hadn't been able to call the police she may have been jumped. my point really is in New York City you never know what's behind the next corner. we have to pay a dollar each day at my school to put in a truck. I feel it's unsafe knowing you don't know where that truck goes or what might happen to it during the day. also for 265 days or so let's say you bring your phone to school every day. That's $365 right there just because the school doesn't want phones on school grounds. We also have metal detectors at school so you can't even try to sneak a phone in.
cell phones in school

Thanks to the pro, which has given her personal idea about the topic, although there were no reference and any other supporting point, therefore i would like to take rebuttals first, then i would post my supporting points as a con; Rebuttals: "Quote" "I also think that they should be allowed because if there is an emergency you can contact parents or authorities. I was in school once and there was a fire and a kid called 911 and was able to get them there because our connection to the fire house was down. Because that kid was able to have his cell phone he was able to save us and our school from a fire." "Unquote" -Pro has mentioned only one example by which she supported the topic, that mobile phones should be allowed, which is somehow logical point, although only one example can not make the whole topic. Phones are the ease of contact but the parents can reach to their children through their advisory, school principle, but they can not destruct the class calling their child to talk to them. Mobile phones can totally destruct the class and it would decrease the interest of kids for studying. Mobile phones should be banned, because the disadvantages are more than advantages; 1. Mobile phones are destruction to the class. 2. Mobile phones are destructing the educational system. 3. Mobile Phones are used only for entertainment during school and this would decrease the interest of kids for studying. 4. Mobile phones are used to watch immoral videos/porn videos, and there hence the pornography would increase. 5. Mobile phones are used as cheating tools. Furthermore, giving more details about the mobile phones should be banned; i would like to give a live example; When i was studying in school, i met a friend who had a mobile phone which was the latest model, and sometimes he used to bring it in school, one day he was caught up at the end of the class while he was busy and he was not looking relaxed, the teacher got him and he was so afraid, the teacher asked him to explain why he brought the mobile in school, and if he brought, why did he bring it in the class, even though he brought in the class, why were he busy? our friend's face was turning red and he was not able to see to the eyes of the teacher. Suddenly the teacher asked him; what were you busy with? he was badly afraid and he didn't say the reality, and the teacher asked my other friends to search his mobile, and OMG it was shocking! because he was watching porn videos inside the class! and the boy was failed! Concluding my live example, i would say; mobile phones should be banned in school, because; a. It is misdirecting kids to bad ways of using it. b. It makes the kid far from studies. c. It disturb the class. d. It causes failure of the students. e. It destruct the educational system. Further i would like to mention one more thing; Mobile phones are more harmful in school than its advantages!
Who was the best U.S. President? II

Ah my friends, the final round.I. Countering Con's Arguments.1. "Excuse me, but do tell how it is so biased. Just going and calling something bias without evidence is bias in itself." I do apologize for not backing up my information. Yet, Cato Institute has been known for YEARS to be extremely biased. It was founded by one of the Koch brothers for God sakes. The evidence is in the website. Read some articles. "The Cato Institute and Rasmussen polls are often cited by conservatives that support certain social and political ideas, so are these organizations non-biased and their results to be trusted? Some critics don’t think so." [1]2. Con says this while discussing my claim about taxes, "Oh, I understand that. I understand that BIG TIME. I just don't think that a good president would put such taxes on such things. It would be more logical to put taxes on things like paint, fireplaces, and other things. The stuff that rich people take for granted. That would make the New Deal a good deal."The reason why FDR put taxes on minor things is because the minor things are what people use the most! No one just goes out and buys a fireplace on a day to day basis. If you put taxes on something that people buy daily, it will increase revenue quicker. FDR did this to get us out of the recession. Simple economics.3. Con's final statement while discussing my claim about FDR's personal involvement in WWII: "You should really say your points better. I will quote exactly what you said on this topic: "He was responsible for leading the United States during World War II, still he died shortly before the end of the war." By making this statement and then saying you were going for something else, you are contradicting yourself.It is obvious that the soldiers played a very important role in leadership, because if they hadn't been there, we couldn't even have fought in the first place. Anyone can tell that is obvious."I really hate to say it, but we have wasted a substantial amount of time debating such an unsubstantial argument. I was simply saying that FDR was responsible for leading us into WWII. That was the extent of that comment. I wasn't trying to make some conspiracy that FDR was on the battlefield like all of soldiers were. Also, I am not disagreeing with you that the soldiers played a leadership role in the war. I'll repeat, I was saying that FDR was responsible for bringing us into WWII. I never intended to say that FDR was playing a general role or something like that in the war. II. Conclusion.Thank you everyone who has taken their time to read and follow this debate. I would also like to thank my opponent for the well rounded arguments. VOTE PRO:)Sources[1]http://digitaljournal.com...
Who was the best U.S. President? II

"The source the Con provided is bias. Con provided a bias source, with a bias writer that wrote the column (Jim Powell). Excuse me, but do tell how it is so biased. Just going and calling something bias without evidence is bias in itself. "I don't think the con understands that the government can not just pint (PatriotPerson corrects your spelling: print) more money and fix all of our problems." Oh, I understand that. I understand that BIG TIME. I just don't think that a good president would put such taxes on such things. It would be more logical to put taxes on things like paint, fireplaces, and other things. The stuff that rich people take for granted. That would make the New Deal a good deal."If you could, site the evidence for the fireside chat excise taxes thing." That came directly from the article I provided. "The Con thinks that men that FOUGHT in the war had some impact on whether or not we got into the war or not?" You should really say your points better. I will quote exactly what you said on this topic: "He was responsible for leading the United States during World War II, still he died shortly before the end of the war." By making this statement and then saying you were going for something else, you are contradicting yourself. It is obvious that the soldiers played a very important role in leadership, because if they hadnt've been there, we couldn't even have fought in the first place. Anyone can tell that is obvious.
Who was the best U.S. President? II

"Trust me, I will" - austinlaamI. I don't even know. The source the Con provided is bias [1]. Con provided a bias source, with a bias writer that wrote the column (Jim Powell). II. Countering Con's Arguments.1. " FDR's New Deal put excise taxes on everyday things like alcoholic beverages, cigarettes, matches, candy, chewing gum, margarine, fruit juice, soft drinks, cars, tires (including tires on wheelchairs), telephone calls, movie tickets, playing cards, electricity, radios --these and many other everyday things were subject to New Deal excise taxes, which means the New Deal was substantially financed by the middle class and poor people. Yes, to hear FDR's "Fireside Chats", one had to pay FDR excise taxes for a radio and electricity! A Treasury Department report acknowledged that excise taxes "often fell disproportionately on the less affluent."I knew the con would have to bring up the tax part. I don't think the con understands that the government can not just pint more money and fix all of our problems. The ONLY way that we could have funded all of the GOOD social programs that came from the New Deal is TAXES. I'm not sure if the Con pays taxes, or has ever paid taxes, its not my business but, let me teach con a little lesson. Taxes pays for almost every single thing you do. Yet, I do not condone the fireside chat excise taxes. If you could, site the evidence for the fireside chat excise taxes thing. 2. "He was responsible for leading the United States during World War II, still he died shortly before the end of the war."He was only partly responsible. Most of the leadership of the USA during WW2 was also caused by his multiple VPs, Harry Truman (for the few months of WWII he was president), and the rest of his cabinet. Not to mention all the brave men that fought in the military, and all the great women who worked and contributed much of their time to the allied cause. "Come on. The con has stated this ridiculous claim with no evidence. He also states, "Not to mention all the brave men that fought in the military, and all the great women who worked and contributed much of their time to the allied cause." The Con thinks that men that FOUGHT in the war had some impact on whether or not we got into the war or not? Obviously I wasn't saying that FDR got onto the battlefield, fought and because of him we won. I was saying He was responsible for LEADING the United states into WWII. To bring up the men and women who helped the allied cause is irrelevant and should not have been included in his argument.[1] This is the bias website sited by the Con: http://www.cato.org...