BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is inhumane for animals to be kept in a zoo

I would first like to define "inhumane" before we begin. .. "lacking pity or compassion" [Dictionary. com - its convenient] I would like to state that my opponents basic premise is that when a zoo is in compliance with laws then it is not being inhumane to its animals . He continues to say that zoos provide a place where an animal is loved, fed and is able to interact with creatures of its own kind. * What my opponent fails to recognize is that often times Zookeepers are not held subject to a strict code of conduct as Zoos operate in a monolithic sense. Those these people are supposed to be trained in working in this profession I know of a few teenagers who work at zoos and to say that these mere children accurately know how to care for an animal is quite absurd. In addition, I do agree that zookeepers do in fact get attached to the animals it does occur where zookeepers are downright out of line in the treatment of the animals. There have been instances where Gorilla cages have not been cleaned out for weeks, as well as times where zookeepers beat the animals if they do not do what they want. It is obvious that this is generally out of frustration not because of the fact that the animal is insubordinate as in fact that are animals and do not always comprehend humans I too have gotten frustrated at one point with my pets. This clashes with my opponents statement that if they were operating under the law. .. Generally there is not a state law overseeing the work of zoo employees. * My second contention is that animals are better off in the wild naturally anyways. Without human interference in the first place we would not have to put endangered species in to zoos. In addition, animals are naturally better off in their own habitat just as a human is better off in their own habitat. To take a happy animal and relocate him just for the sake of attendance rates at the zoo is unfair, the best interest of the animal should always take precedent. Finally, it is often the fault of an irresponsible zookeeper when an animal dies. Many times zookeepers are unaware of how to accurately recreate the natural habitat of the environment the animal previously lived in and they often ingest the wrong plants or fall from too high of a level. * My third and final contention is that animal interaction is not always common in a zoo. When big animals are placed in small spaces they often become territorial. This prevents zookeepers from being able to put three or so animals in one area - limiting interactions. As a result animals often lead a long life of solitude. One of the necessities vital to life is company and by having animals live alone their quality of life has been depleted. This doesn't even begin to take into account the species of animals that must be kept in pairs for if they are not they will die. I now stand ready for cross - ex or refutation of my points and urge an affirmative ballot
It is inhumane for animals to be kept in a zoo

I disagree with the notion that it is inhumane to hold animals in a zoo. For the purposes of this argument I have the following criteria, a zoo constitutes a facility that is open to the public and funded by private donation or tax dollars, is run by a private group or a government of the United States and as such is in compliance with federal and state laws. My basic premise is that when a zoo is in compliance with the laws there is nothing inhumane about a zoo. In a zoo an animal is loved, fed and given room to roam and interact with others of its kind. It is also insolated from the dangers that are ever present in the wild. What zoos take away in space, they more than make up for in safety. I await a challenger.
It is inhumane for animals to be kept in a zoo

Zoos on a whole are subject to the same laws, generally all the way around. .. But moot point. Though a zoo may provide some benefits to an animal I will still continue to argue that it is not substantial enough to wish to put every animal species in a zoo. I would like to take my opponents point of the stalking and say that yes, this is a possibility. However, I must say that zoos would be much better served if they removed most of the species that they have and replace them with endangered ones as those are the ones that need the saving. Instead of funnelling money into zoos, money should be redirected to wild animal conservation. For example the money could be better spent: -Establishing protected reserves -Funding anti-poaching patrols -Educating people about wildlife and the need for conservation -Lobbying for legislation to protect wildlife (from poachers and habitat destruction) If you visit zoos you are contributing to this suffering. Today's wildlife programmes can give viewers a much greater understanding and appreciation of these animals than zoos ever could. If you truly care about animals and conservation turn on the T. V and make a donation to one of the many wildlife charities working to save animals in the wild. If the possibility of re-introduction of the species into the wild is a farce, then zoos only exist to preserve those species in captivity. Keeping animals in zoos harms them, by denying them freedom to carry out their lives naturally. While humans may feel that there is some justifying benefit to their captivity, there is no compensating benefit to the individual animals. Should a handful of individual animals be forced to live out life sentences just so humans can simply satisfy their curiosity? I thank MrMark for actually sticking around for the whole debate and picking a great topic.
It is inhumane for animals to be kept in a zoo

I'm not sure how zoos are run in Inida but I assume that they aren't subject to the laws that U.S. zoos are. I am not here to say that zoos are perfect places. I'm sure that there are some psychological effects to animals that live in zoos. However, imagine the psychological effects of having to fend for your life day in and day out. What if you were stalked by, not one, but several people that all wanted to kill you. There would be things that you could do to protect yourself but you'd always have to be on edge, you'd always be looking over your shoulder. I would assume that over the course of a few years this would become very pscyhologically distressing. My main point is that being an animal isn't a picnic. Being a human being has its downsides as well as I'm sure we are all aware. That being said, my thesis is that I don't believe an animal's quality of life diminishes so greatly by being put in a zoo that you could call it inhumane. Zoos are not perfect places and there are downsides to putting animals in a zoo, but there are downsides to leaving animals in the wild as well and if you call putting animals in a zoo inhumane, then I guess their entire existance would have to be labeled as such. I urge a vote on Con on this issue and I would like to thank my opponent for her clear and well argued points. Thank you for a lively debate.
It is inhumane for animals to be kept in a zoo

Many apologies for missing the last round. I've been having internet problems and could not get on to post. I agree that it is possible that there might be some zoos in the country that fail to live up to the standards that the government has set out. However, the question up for debate is not if every zoo in the United States provides a humane enviornment for animals. It is the greater question as to whether or not the practice of putting animals in zoos is humane or not. I have stated that I believe it is humane because it prolongs their lives, provides them with more than enough for them to not only survive but thrive. I equate animals living in a zoo with humans living in a city or suburb. If humans were given the chance to live on a deserted island they would be able to make their own laws, they wouldn't be imprisoned by the laws of society. However, they would also have to scavange for their own food, find clean water on their own and live without television, phones, computers and many of the other modern conviences we've grown used to. In a city we have all these conviences and the trade off is that we must follow the rules of society and participate in the social contract. I think that is a fair trade off and I believe that for the animals living in captivity it is a fair trade off to have their lives more comfortable.
God Exists and The Bible is about Him

I dont expect people to simply or abruptly change their minds in arguments and debates. But they do go home and think about it, and little thoughts turn into bigger ones. Questions turn into answers. Doubts turn into convictions or convictions about god turn into substanial doubts. What I find about people of faith is they pretend to know things they don't know. I believe in science, logic, and reason. By every reasonable measure, science has improved the lot of humanity by orders of magnitude more than any other institution. The scientific method is the most important discovery in the entire history of the human race. This is why I find it hard to believe in imaginary gods and primitive book with so little value in our modern world. Religion is a social institution that propagates the view that disagreeing with it is disrepectful, intolerant, sinful, and evil. Question everything thank you.
Reincarnation should be considered more likely than not on a rational basis

My burden is to argue and show why reincarnation should be considered more likely than not, My opponents burden is to show why reincarnation is not more likely on a rational basis, by undermining my arguments. Rules; 1. No points are to be awarded for spelling and grammar to either contender 2 no semantics, the arguments is clear from the off set, 3 No insults, profanities or sarcasm that may be deemed as an insult in any way will be accepted, and will result in a forfeit to either contender, 4 Both opponents must try their best to provide their argument in layman's terms 5 Although I intend to show all living beings are eligible to be reincarnated, it is only the reincarnation of human beings which will be the focus of this debate, I will not have to offer evidence for the reincarnation of animals or other living entities apart from humans, With that said, I welcome Thett3 as my opponent and bid an honest and respectful exchange of opinions. .. .. .. ..
whatever you believe still could be false, therfore is not true

impossible is possible by belief logic is absolute, 1+1=2 not 3, even where you are located so you dont know wich of us is taking the pro position? is your friend typing this on your computer while you are being told about it blind folded? becasue then i agree you dont know primate is a Word.. i am not sure about what define primates.. couldnt tell you this
whatever you believe still could be false, therfore is not true

Monkeys are proven to be primates. (http://www.animalresearch.info...)The definition of a primate according to Science Daily: A primate is any member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans. (http://www.sciencedaily.com...)A monkey fits in that category, therefore, a monkey is a primate.I can also believe other things:I believe vi_spex is Pro in this debate. According to the resolution, my belief that vi_spex is in this debate still could be false, therefore it isn't true. But vi_spex is Pro in this debate, right? Yes he is, so yet agian, I have proved the resolution wrong.I will try to decipher vi_spex's statement:logic is absolute, no belief involved. I think what he is trying to say is that logic is always right, and belief has nothing to do with logic.Since it is fact that monkeys are primates, a logical person would realize that monkeys are primates.
whatever you believe still could be false, therfore is not true

I have one example to prove that this resolution is false:I believe that a monkey is a primate. According to the resolution, since what I believe could be false, my beliefs are not true. In other words, the resolution is saying: since the fact that a monkey is a primate could be false, the fact that a monkey is a primate is not true. This is false becaus a monkey is a primate according to Encyclopedia Britannica and the Smithsonian National Zoo. Since I believe that monkeys are primates, and because monkeys are primates, this resolution is false.
whatever you believe still could be false, therfore is not true

I refer not to the person who created the account vi_spex. I refer to the fact that the username, vi_spex, ison the Pro side for the debate. A primate is any member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans according to ScienceDaily, just as debate.org is a website. I extend my previous arguments which are untouched.
The SN 1006 Supernova caused World War Two

Here is my short and simple argument.Premise One: A timeline is an ordered sequence of events.Premise Two: Any event occurring on a timeline mandates the occurrence of the immediately subsequent event.Premise Three: Any event occurring on a timeline mandates the occurrence of all subsequent events.Premise Four: Any event occurring on a timeline is the cause of all subsequent events. (Premise Three, definition of cause)Premise Five: The SN 1006 supernova occurred before World War Two.Conclusion: The SN 1006 supernova caused World War Two. (Premise Four, Premise Five)JUSTIFICATIONS:Premise One:This is essentially how a timeline is defined. As far as structural models of the progression of time go, this is as best as we can come up with. Time is made up of events occurring, and so this is the best way to define it. In addition, the order of events is important, as time is directional (this is shown to be true be properties such as entropy).Premise Two:Also part of the definition of a timeline. Time cannot progress if events do not trigger subsequent events. The only way to argue against this is to posit Parmenidean Monism (the idea that all time is one and does not change). A quick rebuttal of PM is that while solipsistic barriers dictate that we can never know whether or not physical reality changes, what we can know is our own experience, which is always changing. Even if physical reality is static, our experiences do change.Premise Three:This follows naturally. If the first event occurs, it triggers the occurrence of the second event by definition. The second event thusly triggers the third, etc. as a domino effect sweeps through the timeline.Premise Four:We're just matching this up to our definition of cause now. We've already proved that the occurrence of any event mandates the occurrence of all subsequent events, so by definition it causes all subsequent events.Premise Five:This is historical fact. The supernova was observed in 1006 CE, but due to light travel delays, it most likely occurred much earlier in the past than that. WWII on the other hand, began in 1939, over 900 years after the observation of the supernova.Conclusion:Follows from the premises.With that I hand it over to Con.
The SN 1006 Supernova caused World War Two

I am arguing FOR the resolution, that being that the SN 1006 Supernova caused World War Two. DEFINITIONS:SN 1006 supernova: The supernova that occurred in the constellation of Lupus and was recorded in the year 1006. World War Two: The war occurring between 1939-45 between the US, UK, France, the Soviet Union, and Germany, Italy, Japan, as well as other minor powers.
Fun. is a better band than One Direction.

My very first point is that fun.'s music is about just about anything and 1d's is only about love. Fun.'s are about things like regretting one's past, partying, civil war, or even a chronical or inspirational song about a life. Fun. has been around for longer than 1d, are more experienced than they are. Fun.'s music is appropriate for nearly any occasion but 1d's only has a correct place around when one feels like they are in love or want to be loved. Fun. is also way more expressive of feelings in their songs, and those feelings aren't just love. Those feelings are fear, anger, and curiousness. The reason why more people come to 1d's concerts and why they have so many fans is because they are practically new, while Fun. has been around since 2008. Fun. is composed of three men, all who have taken many a music class throughout their schooling life, which they all have garduated from. All of the members of 1d don't go to high school or college and they are only teenagers or very young adults, so it is proven that Fun. has more musical experience and talent because each of them have studied and practiced it since high school and college, while no member of 1d is even taking high school or college courses as of now. What instruments do Liam, Harry, etc. play? They need a whole large band behind them for recordings and concerts, while Fun. is almost entirely their own whole band with Andrew on keyboard/piano and some other percussion, and Jack on the guitar and usually on drums. Fun. found their own fame by joining talents from former bands each of them were in and 1d needed Simon Cowell to make them popular. 1d is just like any other band or boyband that was around for a short time then forgotten--ever heard of the Backstreet Boys? Blue? Boyzon? Ever hear of those guys any more? I didn't think so. I belive I've said enough for one round.
Fun. is a better band than One Direction.

I am on the side of this debate that will argue my beliefs of why Fun. (featuring Nate Ruess, Jack Antonoff, and Andrew Dost), is better than One Direction (featuring Harry Styles, Liam Payne, Niall Horan, Zayn Malik, and Louis Tomlinson). I will feature my first arguments in the second round. First rule is no squealy fangirl crap like "1D IS BETTER THEY ARE HOTTT." No. Seriously. Also no offense language. Only real debating here, people.
Hockey is the best sport in the world

Pro has only claimed that hockey is better than soccer, but has no evidence to show for it. He has neglected his BoP entirely, and even went further to claim that this debate was supposed to be opinionated. If he wanted to make something opinionated, he should have done so in the Opinions section of DDO. I have negated all parts of Pro's argument, and he has failed to prove that hockey is the best sport.
Hockey is the best sport in the world

Thanks to Pro for his...rather short...argument. I will point out that Pro has not addressed his BoP, so everything he has claimed is invalid. That being said, this argument will hardly need much content to win. What Exactly is the "Best Sport?" Here is the definition of best: Best: of the highest quality, excellence, or standing[1] Here is the definition of sport: Sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc.[2] From these definitions, it can be concluded that the "best sport" is the one that requires more skill and physical prowess than the others. However, it is virtually impossible to compare different sports due to their diverse gameplay, equipment, and setting for playing. Therefore, there is no "best sport," and people who do claim that it is are prejudiced since they don't have evidence that their sport (or hockey in this case) has the highest requirement of skill or physical prowess. Pro has failed to provide evidence for this, and his entire argument is heavily opinionated. In addition, he failed to accept full BoP. The outcome of this debate favors Con. Sources [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Federalism would solve many of Africa's problems.

Alright, let me clarify. The resolution is that nearly every nation should adopt federalism, and that it will solve many of Africas problems.Africa has many seperatist groups--------------------------------------- In case some of you were not aware, Africa is filled to the brim with separitist groups. They all want their own government or their own country. Their wants escalate to conflicts and violence, furthering the deppression that Africa's in. A simple fix exists though. Let different regions govern themselves, while also contributing to the national framework.http://en.wikipedia.org...Centralism has failed Africa many times.----------------------------------------------------Africa is arguably one of the most instable places on earth. Multiple coups and rebel skirmishes happen each month. And a lot of the time, the coups work. This is due to the fact that for a rebel group to take control, they only have to overthrow the central government. As France discovered though, it is hard to coup a federal government. Evident by Mexico. This is due to the fact that you must bring all the state governments into your rule, which proves difficult.Different Cultures, Religions, and Ethnic Groups.-----------------------------------------------------------------Africa is the melting pot of religions, cultures, and ethnic groups. They ussualy stay together in different regions of the country, but they are faced with a problem. Their government is not capable of appeasing every ethnic group and culture. This can change though. Give each area a regional government, and they can appease the regional population. https://www.cia.gov...
Federalism would solve many of Africa's problems.

That Nigeria is a federal state. Still doesn't change my argument. Indeed. NIGERIA currently is operating federalism but this is not favouring them. During the time of election, their will be crisis because they want rotation of power. And how can this be solved? Through confederal system of government where the 6geo political zones in Nigeria will have autonomous power with weak centre so that they can govern themselves at their own pace. My opponent even went further to give map of Nigeria, what does map of nigeria has to do with the debate? NIGERIA has over 25o ethnic groups with major 3 tribes (igbo,hausa and yoruba) all this while the minority are crying out loud that they want to rule their country only to meet their waterloo. My opponent equally said that south Africa is operating on federalism.it then means you are equally contradicting your argument because you have first of all agreed with me that south Africa is comfortable whereas you earlier stated that africa is unstable place to live in. Ponder, south Africa is running a bicarmal parliamentry system of government. In conclusion, I still maintain that federalism is not the best form of government that will help Africa. My opponent has failed in all ramification to prove that federalism is the best, and my opponent in the cause of this debate, did not rebut any of my argument. This shows am ahead of this argument...punch.com, vanguard.com