BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Monkeys should be considered persons.

(1.) "I believe the idea of animal rights has reason, not just emotion, on its side (327. 1. 8)." (2.) "All of our duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another- to humanity (327. 3. 16)." (3.) "Pain is wrong because of the pain that is caused, we cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain that your dog feels (328. 1. 6)." (4.) "Like children, however, some animals are the objects of the sentimental interest of outhers. You, for example, love your dog or cat. So those animals that enough people care about, though they lack rights themselves, will be protected because of the sentimental interests of people (328. 4. 2-4)." (5.) "... we have direct duties to those human beings who do not have a sense of justice-- young children, for instance, and many mentally retarded humans. And yet it seems reasonably certain that, were we to torture a young child or a retarded elder, we would be doing something that wronged him or her, not something that would be wrong if other humans with a sense of justice were upset. And since this is true in the case of these humans, we cannot rationally deny the same in the case of animals ( 330. 1. 4-6)." (6.) "A utilitarian accepts two moral principles. THe first is that of equality: everyone"s interests count, and similar interests must be counted as having similar weight or importance. White or black, American or Iranian, human or animal-- everyone"s pain or frustration matter, and matter just as much as the equivalent pain or frustration of anyone else ( 331. 1. 2-3)." (7.) " Some will say that animals have some inherent value, only less than we have. Once again, however, attempts to defend this view can be shown to lack rational justification. What could be the basis of our having more inherent value than animals? Their lack of reason, or autonomy, or intellect? only if we are willing to make the same judgement in the case of humans who are similarly deficient. But it is not true that such humans-- the retarded child, for example, or the mentally deranged-- have less inherent value than you or I. Neither, then, can we rationally sustain the view that animals like them in being the experiencing subjects of a life have less inherent value. All who have inherent value have it equally, whether they be human animals or not ( 335. 2)." (8.) Monkeys are animals and animals have all the rights listed above. (9.) Therefore, monkeys should be considered persons.
Violent Video Games

If this is not related to the debate then why did you post it" It added on to what my comments were at the time. What your comment on it was completely unrelated. You claimed that 'You need to describe in more detail on how they acted like 1st graders'. This is unrelated to the debate. "That is impossible. You need to have an ID to buy a M rated game. He problem went with a parent/ Guardian" Not always true. There is a large market online with no ID requirements. Also, this is still an unrelated comment to the topic. Take Note: In round 1 I said that this debate was about children who are immature enough to play the games. And I added quite more detail then that in both rounds 1 and 2. "Also I know there are games that are inappropriate from immature children, but if their parents trust their children to not act like that and tell all of their friends exactly what happens in that game that is inappropriate then they may play those M rated games" This is a very confusing run-on sentence. Most the time the parents do not know how the children act away from them. Some parents even embrace letting the children act like this. Since the Con has failed to provide any related, or useful supportive information for his arrgument, then my arrgument will end here.
Violent Video Games

...on how they acted like 1st graders. This is not related to the debate." If this is not related to the debate then why did you post it? Also notice that your entire debate from round 2 is just what I said and then a comment, nothing that relates to the debate. "This is irrelevant, I know a 16 year old that bought a few Mature rated game without ID." That is impossible. You need to have an ID to buy a M rated game. He problobly went with a parent/ Guardian. The cashiers at game stores (gamestop, ect.) ask for your ID when you are buying the game. Even if you reserved it and it's rated M you still need an ID or to be with an adult. Also I know there are games that are inappropriete from immature children, but if their parents trust their children to not act like that and tell all of their friends exactly what happens in that game that is inappropriete then they may play those M rated games.
Violent Video Games

But in order to buy a M rated game you need an ID showing that you are 17+ or you need to be with an adult" This is irrelevant, I know a 16 year old that bought a few Mature rated game without ID. Also, this was not part of my original argument. My point was some parents were knowingly buying these games for their children. "...on how they acted like 1st graders." This is not related to the debate. "...like 20 years old that might want to play a M rated game." Again, this has nothing related to this game. "The kids your talking about are problem just trying to be cool..." False, they did this when no one was around as well. "...get peoples attention to they can be popular" Once again, they got popular because they were held back several times and most of them are still in that grade. This is also a unnecessary comment, because I in detail explained how violent video games effected this. "But who knows how they act outside of school, they could be their regular self." Once again, I did. They acted the exact same as they did in school. That WAS their regular self's. "...that they are having trouble with someone or something like that." Once again, I explained in detail on how this was caused by video games. I know a few people before they started playing them, and they were very normal and non-violent. Not much I have to say, because you don't have any information to support this. "But for others, it may offer opportunities to learn new skills and improve social networking" This is not part of what I was debating about. My argument was about how violent video games can effect children who are not mature enough to play them. But, I do not deny this. Because it is true. "The teenagers who were highly neurotic, less agreeable and less conscientious tended to be most adversely affected by violent video games" Exactly, this is what my debate is trying to prove. ____________________________________________________________________________ Seeing that the Con has not proved much information that proves relevant, I will end my argument for round 2 here. Good luck to the con.
Violent Video Games

Video games do have game ratings, But inorder to buy a M rated game you need an ID showing that you are 17+ or you need to be with an adult. The kids you are talking about, Your going to need to give me more information on how they acted like 1st graders.There are people that are like 20 years old that might want to play a M rated game. The kids your talking about are problobly just trying to be cool (witch their propblobly not.) & get peoples attention to they can be populor(witch their propblobly not.). But who knows how they act outside of school, they could be their regular self. Their actions might not have anything to do with violent video games, it could be that they are having trouble with someone or something like that. Playing violent video games can make some adolescents more hostile, particularly those who are less agreeable, less conscientious and easily angered. But for others, it may offer opportunities to learn new skills and improve social networking. ... The teenagers who were highly neurotic, less agreeable and less conscientious tended to be most adversely affected by violent video games, whereas participants who did not possess these personality characteristics were either unaffected or only slightly negatively affected by violent video games. (http://www.annarbor.com...) _____________________________________________________ Good luck and I can't wait for the next round to see what you say.
Violent Video Games

Thank you, Personguy4 for debating! I wish you good luck in your first debate. __________________________________________________________________ In this debate I will be debating against violent video games. I know that Personguy4 is a active video gamer, so I thought this would be a good debate for him and I. __________________________________________________________________ 1. Bad Influence Although video games have ratings, (E, E10+, T, M) most people do not follow this. Some parents let their children play games that they are not ready for. I know some kids when I was about 12 that were allowed to play any game they want, and listen to any kind of music they want. And most of these kids were so immature they were rated to act like 1st graders. These kids continuously used harsh language, and talk so much of war and death, it took a toll on them. They failed school, and were even denied by their parents. This is a effect of violent video games. These kids also are sexist, racist, and so rebellious. I remember that one got expelled from school, and...well lets just say a very large situation with the police for assault and attempted murder of a fellow classmate for a mere accidental push in the school halls. I was friends with this kid before this incident, before he acted like that. It appears he was starting to get addicted to video games. If you don't think that is not bad influence, then what is for you? Children playing violent video games for long periods of time: - Tend to be more aggressive - Are more prone to confrontation with their teachers - May engage in fights with their peers - See a decline in school achievements (http://www.pamf.org...) _____________________________________________________________________ This is the introduction for the debate, I will add more detail in the next rounds. Good luck!
Should Porn be Illegal

Porn does not break up relationships. Pro has yet to prove this. Until Pro proves it, I can say it is not the case. In Round 2, I'll be happy to rebut the proof that Pro may bring.Porn is not an abuse of sex. Sex is an inanimate, metaphysical 'thing' that is a concept... A noun and a verb that can't be abused or feel anything so it cannot be abused unless Pro can prove it.If Pro can prove that Porn breaks up marriages, Pro must then explain why we should not outlaw all things that lead up to (and include) divorce.If Pro can prove that porn is an abuse of sex, Pro must prove why the abuse of sex should render something illegal.
The Confederate flag should be illegal and should be eradicated from all flags.

The war was based on "saving" the Southerners' economy. By economy, they meant the usage of slave labor. During the Industrial Age, there was a larger competition of agricultural goods. Farmers needed more slave labor to keep their farms running. After the cry to free all slaves was heard, the South said that they would leave the U.S. if they deemed slave labor illegal nationwide. So then, the war began. It was the Confederates against the Union. Family members with different opinions would face off, they might have even killed each other over it.
are waffles and pancakes the same

If there"s a big, fat lie in waffledom, it"s that good waffles can be made from pancake batter. Sure, pancakes and waffles both contain eggs, flour and leavening, and they"re both served for breakfast. But differences abound. " Pancakes may be brown on the outside, but they"re floppy, soft and spongy, with an interior that looks a lot like cake. " Waffles, on the other hand, are crisp on the outside and light on the inside, like beignets, funnel cakes, hush puppies or doughnuts. In short, waffles are fried, only instead of being immersed in hot oil, they are encased in hot-oil-covered metal. A few points about waffle batter: " Waffle batter contains a higher percentage of sugar (for caramelization) than pancake. " Waffle batter includes a bit more fat (for a crisp exterior) than pancake.
This house would not ban smoking #4

Thank you for ending the debate from your side. Now I will do my part. Frankly speaking, I didn't get enough time to debate on this topic, so I couldn't surf the internet for examples properly. I did it with the little brains I had on this topic. OK, so to conclude, I will summarize. Games, alcohol, cars and fast-food are unhealthy, I agree. . But it spoils only that person, smoking kills people who are near smokers too. So, your can be rebutted easily buddy. How sure are you about one's life span? So, you mean the person can die even before their *END* date is there? That is really dumb, Pro. This is an example of a murder. By the rebuttals I gave now, I chose to win.
This house would not ban smoking #4

I will just briefly summarize the debate. There was not that much in this debate. My opponent only focused on was health aspect. This was met with rebuttals coming from various aspects. Firstly, smoking is not nearly bad as other illegal drugs. In order to meet the burden of proof in the debate, my opponent was required to show that the harm of cigarette is as bad as other illegal drugs. All he did was simply explain some possible harms of cigarette. Secondly, there are other harmful things that are perfectly legal. Games, alcohol, cars and fast-food are all unhealthy to one’s physical or mental health but they are legal since we know the harm simply is not enough. Thirdly, it takes a life-long and continuous habit of smoking in order for cigarette to crucially harm one’s health. Put simple, it takes around 40~50 years for one to suffer greatly from cigarette, which already is time of death. Hence, cigarette simply shortens one’s life for few years which cannot be viewed as a legitimate reason to start violating individual’s right to cigarette. By all these reasons and examples, my opponent’s case fell flat. On the other hand, my argument regarding unenforceable nature of the motion and individual freedom was not met. It is evident I dominated this debate.
This house would not ban smoking #4

Firstly, I do not use the internet for my debates, mainly this one. I use my brains to answer your questions and to bring about my arguments. I might have failed in in talking about a few things but I am sure I have a reason behind it. Fine now, cigarettes are harmful in many ways like I mentioned earlier. By banning the use of cigarettes, we do not limit the freedom and the rights of the people. Once they stop using it, they will know its effects and other things. Cancer, Asthma and other diseases will make people die everyday. We need to ban it completely. I stress upon. I look forward for a better argument, Pro.
This house would not ban smoking #4

I will briefly rebut the argument that Con gave me. REBUTTAL All Con said during his second round was that cigarette is harmful. He listed various ways that cigarette can be harmful. In this debate discussing about the total ban of cigarette, there are two things that Con has to show: 1) that harm of cigarette calls for radical action of ban, 2) that the ban is a plausible action. Con failed to fulfill both criteria by only giving medical argument, omitting the explanation as to why such medical factors call for ban. Con’s entire round 2 can be rebutted in different layers. Just about anything can harm one’s health. Smoke from factories, electricity and cars kill people in many ways. Just because something is bad, it does not equal to a ban. Just because cars emit smoke, cause accidents and require factories in the process of manufacture, we do not ban cars since benefit outweighs the harm. Again, smokers are aware of these harms of smoking and yet they still choose to smoke. Moreover, cigarette provides recreational activity to individuals. Additionally, Con failed to combat other benefits that we lose by banning cigarette and benefits we gain from keeping cigarette. By banning cigarette, we are also hugely limiting freedom and rights of citizen. We are also oppressing industry that worth hundreds of billion dollars, placing workers of this humongous industry out of work and losing billions of tax revenue. Despite all these drawbacks in several aspects, does it still worth to ban cigarette? Con obviously failed to answer this question. I look forward reading round 3.
This house would not ban smoking #4

To answer the simple point that my opponent made, I want to point out that asthma is caused by many factors and cigarette smoke is just one part. There are causes relating to allergens, airborne irritants including but not limited to cigarette smoke, medicine side-effects, emotional factors, diet containing sulphites, weather, indoor conditions, lack of exercise and even genes. Hence, we cannot blame cigarettes for asthma. Anyway, I await for my opponents complete round, rebutting my Round 2.
This house would not ban smoking #4

I strongly believe that smoking should be banned. I say this because of many reasons. Following:1. Health issuesI say this because many surveys, studies and scientific research have proven that smoking is injurious to health. Smoke is unhealthy and suffocating. It pollutes the environment. There are two types of smokers - active and passive. The person who smokes is active and other who are near to him and inhale the smoke are passive smokers. Both are equally affected by the ill effects of smoking. Smokers and non-smokers meet in many places like offices, buses, hotels, etc. So, considering the bad effects of smoking on individual's health, environment as well as individual rights, it should be banned in public places. 2. InfluenceThe smoking of cigarette is glamorized through advertisements. More and more young boys and girls are attracted by this. Even the 'statutory warning' on the cigarette packets does not stop them. The young generation thinks that those who smoke are smart, modern and intellectual, which is not so.Yeah so, I will be debating more in the upcoming rounds.
This house would not ban smoking #4

My previous debate on this topic was forfeited so here I go again. I will be the Pro in this motion and I will carry the burden of proof to show why smoking should not be banned. The rules for each around is as follows. R1: AcceptanceR2: Arguments from both sides (Only arguments) R3: RebuttalsR4: Counter-attacks R5: Final Argument (without Rebuttals) I look for a great debate.I am going to open four debates on the same topic to investigate the aspect in this field more widely.
Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master!

I will begin with a quote, "We play chess but we can't analyse it, we analyse checkers but we can't play it." Remember the Pro agreed to the conditions of a Con win if he cannot show Chess is harder to master than Checkers. Thus if none of my opponent's points stand by the end of the round, regardless of whether any of my points stand or not, Con wins. C1: Mastery While the Con acknowledges that chess has more rules and is harder to learn, by no means is chess harder to master. I am a living example of this; I have played both games prolifically since childhood, but I improved at chess much, much faster than I improved at checkers and I am close to "mastering" chess today (current USCF around 2100, 2200 is the technical requirement for National Master in the US). There is no reason chess is harder to master just because of the diversity of pieces; that just makes the rules more complicated. Imagine adding an additional rule to checkers that one can only promote a piece after the 100th move; that is another rule, but the game does not get harder to master. Likewise, if we take away the rule of forced capture there are more possibilities, but the game becomes slightly easier to master. Yes there are more rules in chess. Yes there are more possibilities in chess. The bottom line is, checkers is easier to learn and perhaps easier to play, but at least as hard to master as chess. C2: Rules Con brings up the additional point of Rules to show that Checkers is harder to master than Chess. While in chess moves are independent of each other and relatively straight forward, in checkers the moves are much more dependent due to the concept of forced capture. This rule adds a whole new dimension of strategy and planning ahead for checkers, since there can be sequences of back and forth capture. Looking ahead many, many moves ahead is critical in checkers, but looking a couple moves ahead in chess is sufficient to become an expert (I rarely look more than a few moves in). For these reasons I urge a Con vote.
Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master!

Hi! While I'm quite the expert at chess, checkers is a relatively unknown domain to me so it will be interesting arguing for the other side! That being said, I want to propose a revision to the framework: If Pro cannot show that Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master, then Con wins regardless. The BoP thus lies on Pro. If there is no reason to prefer pro, then con is the correct vote. There is no tie. This should be a relatively easy term for the Pro to accept due to the wide range of arguments for difficulty of chess mastery.
Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master!

Hello!The motion is: Chess requires more skill than Draughts/Checkers to master!Since I am on Pro, I must prove that Chess requires more skill to master than Checkers/Draughts.Con must prove that Draughts/Checkers requires more skill to master than Chess. By the way, Draughts is the British name for Checkers. [2]Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Arguments onlyRound 3: Refutation onlyIf Con wants to put arguments in Round 1, then he/she MUST end his/her Round 3 with "swag".If either I or Con does not follow this format, he/she merits a 7-point loss.Here are some helpful definitions:Chess: A board game for two players, each beginning with 16 pieces of six kinds that are moved according to individual rules, with the objective of checkmating the opposing king. [1]Requires: To have as a requisite; need [1]Skill: Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience. [1]Draughts/ Checkers: a game for two players using a draughtboard and 12 draughtsmen each. The object is to jump over and capture the opponent's pieces. US and Canadian name: checkers [To] Master: [verb] be or become completely proficient or skilled inLooking forward to an interesting debate!http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...;[2]