BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
human have the ability to feel agape;(pure love) for another non bloodline related human.

Storytellers have told story's of agape; lovers or soul mates loyal beyond the norm throughout recorded history. A excellent example is "Romeo and Juliet" to focus on a key point of that story the ending as both lovers take their own lives as the realize the other has expired. In my opinion that captures the self sacrifice and devotion of agape(pure love), but this is only a story. agape; is described as pure love and devotion to someone or something placing a greater value on what ever or who ever it is than ones own life. My position in this debate is on unsteady ground as I have neither experienced or seen this love in the real world, But I feel it is entirely possible for a human to value another above themselves. I first supporting fact is "Patriotism" if a patriot can feel love for his country deep enough to be willing to sacrifice them self for it then is it beyond belief that a lover could love his or her partner deeply enough to do the same. my second supporting fact is from the animal kingdom males in the animal kingdom will fight to the death to protect their mate what greater sacrifice is there than your life, and humans are only more advanced animals in the end we would be capable of anything a animal is. My own thoughts on the idea could be summarized as a extreme risk that a human is unwilling, but able take. As placing such a high value on a dynamic(the complexity of the human mind and the frailty of the human body) that is in the end outside the their own ability to protect. Losing this dynamic would leave them fatally injured (mentally). while Romeo and Juliet's actions were to end their own lives this is not a required action in the direct sense as one can live without self value, but the the regret of their own perceived failure would remain for the rest of their life. I welcome anyone that feels they can make a strong case to the contrary. A few rules of this debate 1. Any form of existence beyond death can not be proved or disproved so I would prefer it if both sides avoid using related statements. 2.Due to the high probability of a negative romantic relationship personal experience should be avoided. 3. The biological basis of love is only a theory as such using it to support either side is ill advised.
Tacos vs. Burritos

Tacos shouldn't be eaten if the shells are stale. Actually, burritos go stale more quicker. They contain many ingredients, such as rice, which my opponent stated burritos always have and tacos never do, that can go stale much more quickly. Putting food back in the taco may be a pain, but at least you can take stuff out if you don't like them. This debate actually comes down to the fact that tacos are easier and much more delicious because anything that you can put in them that tastes good is healthy. EG: Turkey, beef, spinach, guacamole, etc. Burritos are much less healthy and include rice which goes stale easily. Obviously, AlwaysRight12345 is always right. 12345.
Tacos vs. Burritos

Tacos can choke you or cut you if the shell is stale. The food being placed back in a taco is more of a pain than wrapping a burrito. Tacos also include unhealthy stuff, and burritos can use all five food groups, as well. You cannot burn a burrito in any way you cannot also burn a taco. What this debate comes down to is whether you think tacos or burritos is healthier. Burritos are less likely to cause bodily harm, and burritos contain rice, where as tacos do not, and otherwise they can contain the same things. This shows the dominance of the burrito.
Tacos vs. Burritos

Burritos can choke you if the food gets stuck in your throat, moron. This may also apply to tacos, but I'm just saying there's and EQUAL CHANCE. Argument Negated! Tacos are much easier for the reasons I stated before. Even if the food falls out, you can eat over a plate and put it back in like a normal person. His second contention is that burritos are more healthy, but tacos include all 5 food groups or else it tastes like crap. Burritos include rice, as he said, but often they include unhealthy stuff. Argument Turned! My second contention is that tacos taste better. Burritos are often burnt, whereas its impossible to burn a taco.
Tacos vs. Burritos

My opponent has stated that tacos can kill you by the shells getting stuck in your throat, but burritos can choke you. Ha. Contention 1-Tacos are easier With a burrito, you have to put all the stuff in and roll it up, but with tacos you have constant potential to edit your palate. Also, tacos are easier to make at home and easier with children. Anyone who thinks they can make burritos at home is just lying to themselves. They're impossible to prepare and messy.
There is other intelligent life in the universe.

I have said this in every round, giving the Pro plenty of opportunity to challenge it, so the burden of proof is still on the Pro. Remember this because it will determine the outcome of the debate. Pro's arguments can pretty much be summed up in the idea that if there are so many planets and galaxies out there, at least one of them probably has intelligent life. In his own words "I completely agree that this does not prove that life exists on them. However, a lot of potential planets does make it more likely that life exists on at least one of them. " Because the burden of proof is on the Pro, this will not be enough for him to win. The Pro said that the idea that God put life on earth could be dismissed because there was no proof, but his arguments have no more applicable proof than God does. Talking about one theory of how life started on earth then saying that there is a possibility that it happened somewhere else is not proof, it is assumption. I win this debate because Pro did not prove that there is other intelligent life in the universe, he only said that it is a possibility. His argument about the comet theory does not prove that there is other intelligent life, only that there is a possibility. He also says that we may not be able to see the life or that it might be underground, but this works against him because that would make it harder to prove.
There is other intelligent life in the universe.

Seeing as the pro did not say otherwise, it can be assumed that he accepted the BoP. Considering how precise the conditions need to be for a planet to sustain life, it is unlikely that another planet is both able to sustain life and has intelligent creatures on it. Out of all the small things about the earth that are needed for life, if even one of them was different we would all die. The distance from the sun, rotation angle and speed, correct mixture of gasses in the atmosphere, fresh water, correct temperature, etc... all need to be perfect for life to form. Even Mars, our closes neighbor, is a dry and lifeless wasteland. So far we have not found another planet capable of creating life, so there is no proof that we will find one at all. In response to the Pro's arguments, the comet theory is not very logical. Scientists cannot figure out how life began on earth, so they say it came in on a comet, but give no explanation for where the life originally came from. Therefore none of his arguments about the comet theory prove anything. Even if the comet theory was true, it would only prove that there might be some bacteria floating on a rock out there. The Pro says that we have life on one eighth of our planets, but that does not really represent what we have found. Out of all the planets we have found and observed, none of them show any signs of life, and very very few of them are even close to being able to sustain life. Lots of potential planets does not prove anything about the existence of life on them. Now I don't mean to turn this into a religious debate, but the possibility that God put life on earth cannot be dismissed. This idea would mean that just because there are lots of planets out there, it doesn't mean that there is life on them. It is possible that God only put life on earth. So because Pro's arguments are all based on faulty logic and unproven theories and because from what we do know extraterrestrial life is very unlikely, I should win this debate.
There is other intelligent life in the universe.

Before we delve into the rest of the universe, let’s talk about how there is life on our little planet. We are in a rather insignificant solar system with an average star. Yet we have life. This is most likely due to organic molecules transported on comets from other areas of the universe. These organic molecules later evolved into creatures capable of debating on the Internet. This brings me to my first argument. If these comets are the true source of life on Earth, then what are the odds that in the entire universe, this event only happened on one planet? With trillions of stars most of them having planets and some of those planets being able to support life, I find it very unlikely that these comets were the source of life for only one planet. Staying on the topic of these life bringing comets, where did the organic molecules come from? If they came from a place where life already existed, then that alone would prove that there is at least other life in the universe whether or not that life is intelligent. I have been talking about these comets as if they are a fact but they are not. They are just a theory, but currently, they are the most plausible reason for life to be on Earth. For this argument, however, let’s assume you don’t believe in the comet theory. Then I urge you to look at the solar system around you. As I said before, we are not significant. But we have intelligent life on an eighth of our planets. If this figure holds true for the rest of the universe, then it is logical that there is other intelligent life in the universe.
There is other intelligent life in the universe.

I don't currently have an opinion on this, but could be swayed if the pro provides good arguments. The burden of proof is on the pro because the pro only has to prove one situation, whereas if the BoP was on me I would have to prove that there is no intelligent life anywhere. As of yet, no definite proof has been found for intelligent life off our planet. Crop circles, Roswell, and the pyramids do not count as proof for the pro.
Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty.

My opponent has forfeited the previous round however I will provide a conclusion. Animal cruelty for joy causes the animal to hurt unacceptably, which is very cruel. Imagine you were the animal how would you feel? You would be begging to escape from the cruel treatment. Also, animal abuse leads to more animal abuse and even human abuse. This has happened with Luka Magnotta and Jeffrey Dhamer.My opponent has forfeited a round and has not provided arguments on why animals should be exposed to cruelty for joy. He has instead tried to convince me suffering is unavoidable, which is not the topic. Vote Pro.Thank you.
Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty.

The first wave of farm related genocide would be the use of pesticides. Pesticides have been linked to the death of ~30% of the US honey bee population.Next, heavy equipment will crush the life out of a legion insects and rodents.Thousands of animals will die for you to have a salad.What I am getting at is that your mere existence will cause animals to suffer. It is simply unavoidable.What you trying to get at is that suffering is unavoidable, but that is not the debate topic. You should be arguing that animals should be exposed to cruelty. The definition of cruelty is that "something that intensely hurts the animal for joy NOT true necessity. " So, you are saying all that is unavoidable, thus a true necessity. True necessity is not defined as cruelty so your argument is invalid. "Something that is humane does not hurt the animal." The reason animals are butchered in the manner that they are is because the death is as quick as possible. A few seconds of pain is simply NOT cruelty.I have no idea what you're trying to get at here either. Defining was in round one. ARGUMENT Another reason is animal abuse can lead to human abuse. Animal abuse can be an indicator of sociopathy. "Several famous killers, such as Luka Magnotta and Jeffrey Dhamer started out with animals before they did it on other humans ". Hence animal abuse can lead to human abuse so it is best to avoid it.(1)(1) http://wiki.answers.com...;Thank you.
Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty.

Lets extrapolate from the idea of becoming a vegetarian for ethical reasons. Since the capacity for pain is equal, consider all animal life equal in this example. The first wave of farm related genocide would be the use of pesticides. Pesticides have been linked to the death of ~30% of the US honey bee population. Next, heavy equipment will crush the life out of a legion insects and rodents. Thousands of animals will die for you to have a salad. What i am getting at is that your mere existence will cause animals to suffer. It is simply unavoidable. "Something that is humane does not hurt the animal." The reason animals are butchered in the manner that they are is because the death is as quick as possible. A few seconds of pain is simply NOT cruelty.
Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty.

Apart from your religious animal sacrifices and salvation point, the rest of your argument does not explain why "Animals should be exposed to cruelty". You have explained that religion dictates sacrifice for salvation and that sacrifices involve a slaughter technique, but why can't one become a vegetarian then? My opponent has even agreed that those techniques are swift and humane. He has also pointed out that the techniques are painful. Something that is humane does not hurt the animal. Thus my opponents point is contradictory."Having or showing compassion or benevolence. "(Google definition of humane when "Define Humane" is entered into the Google search engine.)Thank you
Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty.

You stated that true necessity did not include religious practices but I would like to point out that to a person whose religion dictates sacrifice for salvation, the alternative is probably eternal damnation. If that were your belief, would you not view it as an unpleasant necessity? Would you take joy in that practice? Most likely, no. Additionally, most animal sacrifices involve a slaughter technique consistent with how the animal is typically butchered. For example, the slitting of the throat or breaking of the neck. While neither of those practices are painless, the resulting death is swift and therefore humane. Unfortuntely, it is a cruel world in which we live. just watch National Geographic and you will see what a creature endures during natural predation. It is simply a fact of life that everything dies eventually and its not always "clean."
Animals shouldn't be exposed to cruelty.

I would like to make a clarification that 'TRUE NECESSICITY" does NOT include religious purposes, or situations where a cruelty can be avoided. It ONLY includes situations where a person is desperate, and has to make the animal endure cruelty. Even in starvation, an animal may be humanely killed. Onto my argumentFirstly, animals have to endure unacceptable pain when exposed to cruelty. Imagine you were an animal. Would you like to endure such pain? If, say you were hit on the leg, you might scream, but animal cruelty is MUCH MORE than that. Imagine humans were treated with cruelty; you would be screaming with agony, filled with terror etc. Thank you.
what is Poverty

'Working does help depression you forget to feel sorry for your self, and get on whit your life would you call that opportunity or just using that for not getting up in the morning.' It does help depression, however when you're so deep in depression, you actually need help, the chemicals in your brain are so off balance that death and dying is a successful alternative in your head. I've been through it as many others have. However another option for this is oppression, in prison or slavery, when you're ordered to do things, you lose that free will. a lot of prisoners kill themselves because they don't know the true luxury of freedom. As for opportunity, as I stated with my success in life due to my ancestors colour. An African American or Aboriginal Australian will get less opportunity then me due to social ignorance, they assume because there is a large population of uneducated dark skinned people as well as a large percentage of criminals and hoodrats / thugs / gang members, that all of them will be. This gives them a worse opportunity than me in first impressions. 'I did not look at the 3rd World that's not where I am coming from, they just live and produce more hardship for them self, they don't know better.' the way I am reading your responses to horrible situations in life makes me feel like you have an intolerance towards their hardship :/ it's not fair for them that they got put in a situation that they did. Just like it was only chance and luck that I was born into where I am. now obviously my parents were going to give birth to a Caucasian child but it didn't have to be me. If these people went through wars and had no choice but to learn and grow then they would be in the same spot we are. But the thing is with them is that we are the ones that went in and forced them to change their ways. Now the new generation is paying for that. 'And that's where its fundamentally wrong in many places s that have not experienced a war, it makes people into better people more responsible more dedicated.' It 'CAN'. look at the middle east, for the last 30 years there has been wars. look at china and Mongolia, look at Persia. The real people who made war advantageous was the people who used the scientific method. Math started in the middle east and was brought over to rome and Greece as well as a lot of other Europeans parts later on. We have only really had technology for the last 300 years... that's a splinter compared to how long people have been around. Overall, greed is a killer, pursuing knowledge breeds liberalism and awareness.
what is Poverty

Yes giving up is an easy way out, no backbone no moral no input just plain laziness, they become a burden on the people that like to live a normal life. Working does help depression you forget to feel sorry for your self, and get on whit your life would you call that opportunity or just using that for not getting up in the morning. I did not look at the 3rd World that's not where I am coming from, they just live and produce more hardship for them self, they don't know better. Culture got some plaime for they Poverty not all, The Europeans were so successful in advancements in technology due to always being in wars, they had no option but to pursue knowledge and technology. And that's where its fundamentally wrong in many places s that have not experienced a war, it makes people into better people more responsible more dedicated.
what is Poverty

This is more of an opinion gathered from just being aware. But since you're asking me, I won't use sites. It seems like people, after a while... kind of give up, they no longer try and seize the world and make it theirs. Instead they try and get through the next day, usually this is not the best investment to do. I know many people who were borderline homeless, however they maxed out credit cards on good investments and, well, the rest is history. Another situation would be opportunity. I am a 19 year old white male who has dark hair and is around 6ft tall, I am also fairly fit looking. Unfortunately in society, this appearance while being educated is the most opportune combination you could be. I have never gone without a meal, never gone without a bed, never gone without clothes or a shower. I have always been supported by everyone who sees me, always being encouraged. People always saying (through my depression) that I have a lot of potential etc. Whether they're just being nice or being honest, I have always had everything I could have ever asked for. On the other hand, I look at some of my best friends and they don't have this luxury of even walking down the street and being thought as a part of society, even though this idea is more of a racial profiling, the difference with opportunity stays the same through out the world. After we go through these two situations, if we look at the poverty in 3rd world countries, we will know that there is just SO many people in the same situation. The first thing I mentioned is that they don't pursue the world, but they pursue getting through the night. The Europeans were so successful in advancements in technology due to always being in wars, they had no option but to pursue knowledge and technology. When you have a culture of despair and death, with no reason to actually learn things (it sounds harsh, but look at it on a historical perspective), you end up with poverty. The good thing is, they are slowly becoming educated more and more every year. It's actually one of my passions to go and help them too :) I hope that helps, if you have any other questions, feel free to ask
what is Poverty

I am answering a question 'What is Poverty'. I am taking the (pro) for side, however since there is no definitive side to take, it appears my only role is to answer his question. Poverty. Noun - 1. the state of being extremely poor. 2. the state of being inferior in quality or insufficient in amount. 3. the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor. 4. deficiency of necessary or desirable ingredients, qualities, etc. 5. scantiness; insufficiency Poverty, destitution, need, want imply a state of privation and lack of necessities. Poverty denotes serious lack of the means for proper existence: living in a state of extreme poverty. Destitution, a somewhat more literary word, implies a state of having absolutely none of the necessities of life: widespread destitution in countries at war. Need emphasizes the fact that help or relief is necessary: Most of the people were in great need. Want emphasizes privations, especially lack of food and clothing: Families were suffering from want. In pure economic terms, income poverty is when a family's income fails to meet a federally established threshold that differs across countries. Typically it is measured with respect to families and not the individual, and is adjusted for the number of persons in a family. Economists often seek to identify the families whose economic position (defined as command over resources) falls below some minimally acceptance level.1 Similarly, the international standard of extreme poverty is set to the possession of less than 1$ a day. References: http://dictionary.reference.com... https://www.google.com.au... http://www.unesco.org... With this, I hope I have answered your question, if you have anything else that needs to be addressed, please tell me :)