BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animals have Rights

First, I would like to define a Right, a Liberty, and a Regulation all from Merriam-Webster for ease of access: "Right, definition B: the interest in a claim which is recognized by and protected by sanctions of law imposed by a state, which enables one to possess property or to engage in some transaction or course of conduct or to compel some other person to so engage or to refrain from some course of conduct under certain circumstances, and for the infringement of which claim the state provides a remedy in its courts of justice." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) "1. the quality or state of being free" > "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control " & ""the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) "2b: a rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law." (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I would like to propose that animals do not have rights in the legal sense as they lack the ability to exert liberties while also being subject to regulation for treatment instead of being considered individuals under the law: "The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in 1966. It is the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act as the minimum acceptable standard." (http://awic.nal.usda.gov...) As such with animals including management and treatment of animals versus granting them rights and regulations instead of exertions of will it is arguable that animals have the capacity to have rights or the capacity to even enjoy the concept of rights. To that end I do not believe that animals have de facto rights under the law nor that they ever will so long as they are not sufficiently capable of truly enjoying their fruitfulness.
school needs to start later

Since pro stated his/her argument I will state mine in the first round. Starting school later would mean that you wouldn't get home until later, meaning probably missing dinner with your family. Also you state that "Students barely have enough time to get ready and we are so tired in lass." Maybe the resolution for this is to set an earlier bed time, so when you wake up you wont be as tired, you will be well rested. You also stated "My parents also get really stressed out about getting me their on time" The resolution would to be, wake up earlier, get ready and leave a few minutes earlier so that why your parents have plenty of time to drive to work. Then you stated "Teachers I believe also want more time they rush their class plans and aren't organized. Starting school later needs to happen." Its required by law that : STANDARD SCHOOL DAY 1."A school day of pupil instruction must be at least 2 hours for kindergartens,at least 4 hours for grades 1 through 3,and at least 6 hours for grades 4 through 12 Source:http://opi.mt.gov... Im pretty sure you don't know that the teacher wants to start school earlier, they probably would like to start earliest, to get home earlier so they can get home to their family!
Michael Moore Hates This Country

As the instigator and the affirmative, Pro's job in this debate was to prove that Michael Moore hates this country (America). My opponent has only mentioned that Michael Moore has made films and opposed capitalism. Neither of these things prove Pro's point. Additionally, Pro cited Michael Moore stating that he loves America. I provided an additional source noting the same sentiment expressed by Moore himself. I've also explained how just because one might disagree with something's values or behavior doesn't necessarily mean that they hate that thing. If anything, M.M's efforts and activism can be attributed to the fact that he does not hate this country, and thus is trying to help this country achieve his ideal of success for what he believes to be the common good. Even if he's going about it the wrong way, his intentions are good, and thus the resolution affirmative is not sustained.
Michael Moore Hates This Country

My opponent has failed to present any adequate arguments supporting his claims. Nowhere in any of his films does Michael Moore say that he hates America. In fact, he has gone on the record saying the opposite: "Michael Moore hates America? Everything I do is because I love America!" [1] Pro has not proven that M.M. wants America to become a Socialist country; disagreeing with some aspects of capitalism doesn't mean that you support socialism necessarily. Moreover, even if he did support socialism in America, that doesn't prove that M.M. hates this country but instead that he'd rather see it go in a different direction. Just because one may have an alternate view on political or economic philosophy doesn't mean that they have malicious sentiments towards the U.S. Pro has failed to prove otherwise. Source: [1] http://www.imdb.com...
Philosopher Kings should rule.

Preferably an expert with an unrivaled set of ideologies, not depending upon a sole philosophy. This would ensure an angular advantage over opponents. Military, political and economic prowess define a super president; however the masses settle for broken promises and toughness. Hardly the wisest people to rely on for true democracy. So a hybrid government has been proven to be required for effective rule. Meritocratic filters for qualifying officials are more logical than whatever is being practiced currently. A test for this would not be difficult to make. Multilayered format, including an essay, impromptu speech, hypothetical scenerios to be acted out, interviews, and a debate. All televised.
Philosopher Kings should rule.

Due to a troll sabotaging the first debate, this is a redux. Rules: quality sources, not quantity. Anecdotes are forbidden. New rules can be updated in comments. Arguments: Plato had the idea, but he"s not here now. Ph . D"s would be apt to replace dictators and prime ministers. Experts would be forbidden from developing an elitist paradigm. Educated and competent leaders are not only pertinent to global improvement and future survival. Greedy corporations are killing humanity. https://youtu.be...... https://youtu.be...... Thank you for accepting.
Mac os x is better the all windows operating system

for this third stage there are so many points that are not relevant, that im gonna take the ones hat make sense and prove them wrong one by one 1 in all of my debates i have been in on this subject i have never had anyone say that macs are better because of the sleep mode, even though you say, "this is where all the complaints come form" 2 all though every detail counts, i will use your example to prove my point. in this case, the tech specs that i mentioned would be like a candidate getting California, Texas, and new york, the three largest electoral vote states worth 120 combined. the sleep mode would be like winning Rhode island worth around 3 votes. the amount of impact the two features have on the computer are utterly incomparable, and frankly shows how little you can think of to support your argument if you are using something as silly and non influential as the sleep mode. (if you don"t know what i mean by electoral college, Google it) 3 i agree with the fact that people want to be able to use a computer to its full potential, which is why that supports PC's so well. the whole idea behind increased power and performance along with the fact that windows (along with Linux, also primarily used on PC'S) is the most popular open-source OS makes it the definition of using a computer to its full potential, which you apparantly think is an extremely important part of a computer, with which i agree. 4 And only when i thought your arguments could only get more irrelevant, you bring up notepad, which is not intented for anything more than notes (hence the name) and basic html coding. its the same on mac, and its honestly astonishing that you are even attempting to make it a valid point. 5 your point about the orientation of the hDD structure is purely influenced by how organized you keep your folders, and has nothing to do with OS. i kepp mine in a extremely simple structure that lets me find everything by either A. having the attention span to actually spend 10 seconds following the folder structure or B. using search to find it virtually instantly 6 Also your cloud argument is bull. not only is icloud nonfunctional, but everyone who doesn't live under a rock knows that PC's invented it first. the fact that you say that apple is the leading force behind innovation is false. everything from the cloud, to tablet computing, to portable mp3 music was first released by microsoft or other pc companies, and then a couple years later, apple just put some stainless steel on it and put an i at the beginning of its name. so in conclusion, not only do pc offer a less expensive product, but simultaneously give higher performance, with innovative ideas earlier. also with the open source OS, it enables the user to use his/her pc however he/she wants to. buy a computer, not a brand.
Mac os x is better the all windows operating system

Ok I really like how you say that its not a relevant topic when most of the complaints come from that. When were talking about the operating system every little thing counts. That's almost like saying that there are 50 people voting and only 10 of them have an impact. Like that's just stupid when you look at it. When you want a good operating system you want the complete package. When you first get a Mac you can see that it is much cleaner then a PC. All of the extra files for developer and stuff is not in your face which means you are stuck with all of these files that are not even in our language. I actually have a PC and I can tell you that is one of the biggest cons for PC's. When you are on a PC in your documents there are so many layers that just are not necessary. When you finding documents on a Mac all you do is open finder and its right there. You don't have to worry about losing files and you don't have to search through all of those pointless folders on a PC. Another thing is people want the ability to do everything that a computer can do. Mac comes with more simple and revolutionary programs built in for you. Unlike Mac, PC has stupid applications that don't even work effectively. For example notepad on a PC compared to notes on OSX 10.8. Notepad on a PC was not developed well and you can ask many people that and they will give you the same exact answer. Notepad is almost like a slow, stupid version of Microsoft Word. All it is is like a minimized note taker that you still have to save in whatever folder you want to. So the problem about this is that if you want multiple notes you would have to be saving documents constantly. Notes for the Mac is clean simple and it's just awesome. Believe it or not apple has made their own cloud storage called iCloud. For notes you never have to save them in a folder because it is all stored just on the application. You should probably look it up on youtube and see because it smokes notepad. Why would I need to look everywhere in my documents just for some simple notes. And how awesome would it be to be able to store in a invisible hard drive and access it on your phone and other computers. Well what do you know! Mac has already made that possible! I think that Mac has a huge advantage over windows. It comes fully ready and there's nothing bad about it. I think that Windows has a many years before they catch up with Mac. But personally I think that will never happen because Apple is so much more advanced.
Mac os x is better the all windows operating system

the power aspect of sleep mode is first of all not relevant if we are discussing desktop computers, but if we are transferring to not only laptops but quality of OS, you have to ask yourself if having a better sleep mode along with a few other semi-helpful small features like sleep is worth paying the extra one to two hundred dollars for. i personally use windows 7 on my laptop, and the sleep mode resumes my use in much less than a minute. in fact, i just put my laptop (pc) along with my brothers laptop (mac) to sleep, and opened them back up at the same time, and they both resumed at 5 seconds, a virtually identical time. i believe what the 1 minute claim is referring to is the start up time, which is still untrue. for my laptop, it takes me 22 seconds for me to go from complete shut down to the log in page. but having a better sleep mode, even if not by much, is not something i think anyone has based a purchase of a computer on. i think the three rating that i mentioned in the first round are much more relevant, considering you will be using those constantly and not just when you are resuming use of the laptop. also, the same financial stats apply to laptops, with pc's being cheaper to buy, but still having superior performance.
Mac os x is better the all windows operating system

Ok first of all when you say this is all preference you obviously favor PCs. Now if I am right I stated in my argument was about quality and not price. One I can go on and on about how Mac gives you the best experience for any computer out there. One thing is that Mac has a reliable sleep mode. When you put a computer into sleep mode you want in in a mode of loosing no power at all but still being able to resume what your doing in a simple process. Windows has always had this problem that sleep mode is just not effective. When you put a windows into sleep mode it does not do what it needs to do. It ends up staying on 24/7 chewing up your battery so when you go on its battery is already dead. In Fact most people end up doing a full shutdown on there computer so there is not battery drain at all! Now this makes it so they cant do a quick resume. So they have to hold the power button and wait and log on instead of using a Mac and just going straight back on. Back to a complete shutdown you have to reboot. A Mac book pro current Gen can start up in just 25 seconds, unlike a PC which can take longer then a minute. I don't know about you but if I want to use my computer and its turned off I want it to turn on faster then a blink of an eye. So these two components are big factors when you want to know which operating system give you best quality.
Mac os x is better the all windows operating system

First of all, this is very much a topic of preference, therefore both of our arguments will be influenced by what we use on our own. once we have got that out there, it is very easy to back up that a pc is not only of equal or greater quality for a lower price, but because of the restricting OS used on Macintosh computers, Pc's have a range of not only hardware options but software options increases the customization of the computer not only with the ability to upgrade parts instead of buying an entirely new computer which is not only a financial bonus but a user friendlyness simply not met by Macintosh computers. That brings me to the financial side of this argument. here are two compters. one is a mac, and one is a pc. i will admit these are only three specs, but these are the main ways to judge the performance of a desktop computer. Mac Mini: 2GB of ram, 500gb on the hard drive, i5 proccessor. HP pavilion desktop: 8gb of ram, 1 TB of hard drive space, and a AMD Quad-Core A6-3650 Accelerated Processor. now here is the shocking thing. the hp has essentially double the performance in all three of these categories, if not more, but costs $130.00 cheaper than the mac mini, which if you look at the stats, lives up to its name extremely well.
being annoyed because of "breaking a nail" is not superficial

I might as well finish my argument. Argument: I do not think that it is an absurd statement to say that for the most part those that complain about broken nails are doing so because they had previously spent money to make their nails look good. Therefore complaining about it is a superficial thing. Rebuttal: ///Many famous guitarist"s have manicures in case of them having a nail broken thus affecting their guitar playing./// My opponent has not given a source for this information
being annoyed because of "breaking a nail" is not superficial

The only people that need to worry about breaking their nails are those that have their nails done for reasons such as increasing their attractiveness. There's no real value to having nice-looking, long fingernails. The nails break because of how they are maintained. If said person had not been so superficial their nail would not have broken as easy In rebuttal, having significant pain upgrades the broken nail from annoying to a problem. Hospitals are serious and greater than annoyances.
being annoyed because of "breaking a nail" is not superficial

The statement" oh ive broke a nail" is seen as minor clash between fakeness and a steretypical minor inury for "superficial girls" Although breaking a nail is minor in comparsion to other inuries it can cause sustained Pain and even hospitalisation, Many famous guitarist"s have manicures in case of them having a nail broken thus affecting their guitar playing. Other nail breaking inuries include subungual hematoma which causes mountless pain, of the ripping of a nail.thus causing annoyance.
creation is the only logical explanation for the origin of life.

My apologies for taking so long to reply. I have been lazy recently.From what I have read so far, my opponent hasn't given us any good reason against creation. My argument will be based on what makes the most logical sense. I will present my case and wait to see if my opponent can refute my case using logic and reason. Either the universe was created by an intelligent designer who has a puropse for our existence, or the universe is the result of a mindless process--natural selection. Which one is true? I believe the only logical answer is creation. No doubt the atheist will say that there is no evidence of creation, which I find absurd. But why is it absurd? If an atheist is walking along the beach and he sees a sand castle, instantly he knows that somebody designed it. He knows without a doubt that intelligence is behind the sand castle. He would never accept the possibility that the sand castle was the result of nature, that over the course of a few years the wind, sand, and sea, miraculously formed the sand castle. His common sense would never allow him to believe such foolishness. Yet he can look at the universe and proudly deny a Creator.Everything we see either comes from design or something else. Even a rock has to come from something. It doesn't just come out of thin air. Every object that exists always comes from something else. Let's assume, as many scientists do, that before the big bang nothing existed. How could something as big and awesome as the universe come out of nothing? Usually the atheist will deny believing that something can come from nothing, because it is intellectually embarrassing, but ultimately that is what they believe. They just have to whitewash it to reduce the embarrassment. Scientists have never observed an object coming from nothing, nor have they ever witnessed information coming from non-intelligence. But anyone who applies the same standards to the universe will get accused of being stupid and irrational. This is pure arrogance and hypocrisy. What more proof of creation do you need than to have the universe and life on earth all around you? If the atheist is going to deny creation, he has to justify his position with evidence. Providing evidence is not something atheists are comfortable with, but until the atheist provides solid evidence for his beliefs, I think we can safely say that creation is the only logical explanation.Peace
Property Rights Ought Not Exist in the United States

I submit from wikipedia: A property right is the exclusive authority to determine how a resource is used, whether that resource is owned by government or by individuals. [1] All economic goods have a property rights attribute. This attribute has four broad components[2]: the right to use the good the right to earn income from the good the right to transfer the good to others the right to enforcement of property rights. I thank you for this opportunity and hope we have a good debate.
there are few claims of inerrancy of the pope prior to 1000AD

are there many claims of inerrancy of the pope prior to say, 1000-1300? i see plenty that he is a "first among equals" and a highly respected leader, and perhaps even deferred to, but nothing in the way of 'inerrant'. it's said that even if that doctrine is true, it wouldn't just spring up in full force. which i understand. but then again, it wouldn't take more than a thousand years to say something about the pope being inerrant. also, i'm trying to understand a critical point in history. 1050 ish was when the East broke from the West. early 1200 ish is when the Latern Council said the pope should be "humbly defer"ed to. (note they didn't say humbly submit) and late 1200 ish is when a fellow named Olivi (some call him the 'inventor' of infalliblity) came along and without question said the pope cannot error. in the early 1300 ish a pope John XXII decried that idea of infalliblity, at least the extent of the definition given. the pope talked about all temporal and civil power and everything being too much for the pope. it is unclear if he thought any perogative of the pope being inerrant was too much, or the extent described. it's ambiguous... but seems to indicate any inerrancy peroagative was too much. but.... and this is a big but, less than a mere decade after that pope, though, another named Terreni came along and defined infallibliity very similar to the way Vatican I defined infallibility. so i'm wondering what connections there are between Terreni and Olivi? why did Terreni see fit to limit infallibility better? was he influenced by Olivi or did he act on his own accord? he was almost surely influence by the pope's writing against infallibility, right? and yet he still chose to write it similar to how vatican I would later do it? that does seem to be pretty compelling in favor of the catholic church. as of now, i just don't have enough info about all the connections. but even if this time frame was viewed most favorably to catholics, where is the proof of inerrancy pre1000-1200? to me, that is becoming the deal breaker in becoming a full fledged catholic.
Abortion

Even though those facts may be true, the decision for a mother to place a child up for adoption is not an easy process. Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. Adoption solves the problem of who will take care of the child but abortion a decision of ending an unwanted pregnancy. For example woman who get raped and do not want the constant reminder of being sexually assaulted. Overall, adoption may seem an easy fix on the outside but there are many other factors to it.
Abortion

Studies have indicated that there is, in fact, a rich and prosperous "market" for adoption. It is a traditional belief that adoption is a long and difficult road for children, but that inference is a poorly justified opinion based on false pretenses. In 2001, a staggering 1.5 million kids were adopted from the United States both internally and internationally. Also with the rights of same sex marriage rapidly expanding, it is estimated that the 66k adopted annually will grow exponentially (PBS).
Abortion

On the topic of adoption, it is not as simple as having the baby and giving it to a family. First, the child will eventually want to know who his/her biological parent is. It is not as simple as giving the baby up and never having to deal with the baby again. The adoption process is not easy either. Many people have a hard time finding the right family for their child. Overall, adoption is not an option to abortion because it is still up to the woman to give the child up for adoption or not.