BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: That circus animal entertainment is morally wrong and should be banned.

Circus animal entertainment is morally wrong and should be banned for the plain and obvious reason that we are more civilized and must realize that an anthropocentric attitude is morally wrong as well. To further clarify this debate round; circus: an arena often enclosed in a tent or building for performances by acrobats, TRAINED ANIMALS, clowns, etc animal:any such organism other than a human being, esp. a mammal or, often, any four-footed creature (in this debate, we will be referring to MAMMALS) entertainment:something that entertains; interesting, diverting, or amusing thing; esp., a show or performance ANTHROPOCENTRISM: 1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. 2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience. My first point is that animals do indeed have rights and share the same moral prerequisites for rights as humans do. But lets back up a bit. Why should we deem animals to have moral rights? Simply for exactly the same reason we deem people TO have rights: because each has an inherent value, for himself or herself, are not, like property, value merely as a means to others' ends. But most animals are, like people, sentimental creatures who feel pain just like you and me. Then animals too should be deemed to have rights-rights that not be sacrificed or violated merely for human benefit. In other words, animals feel pain just like you and me. FEDERAL LAWYER by Henry Cohen And I will be proving as well that the anthropocentric philosophy is wrong because lets face it, there are other things out there in the world. WE share this great big planet with billions of other creatures and the act of torturing animals to make them do tricks for OUR entertainment is plain wrong and morally unacceptable. Lets face the cold hard facts; The fact is, animals do not naturally ride bicycles, stand on their heads, balance on balls, or jump through rings of fire. To force them to perform these confusing and physically uncomfortable tricks, trainers use whips, tight collars, muzzles, electric prods, bullhooks, and other painful tools of the trade. We applaud trapeze artists, jugglers, clowns, tightrope walkers, and acrobats, but let's leave animals in peace. Sweden, Austria, Costa Rica, India, Finland, and Singapore have all banned or restricted the use of animals in entertainment—it's time for the U.S. to do the same. http://www.circuses.com... and now to end on a final note for this round; "The idea that it is funny to see wild animals coerced into acting like clumsy humans, or thrilling to see powerful beasts reduced to cringing cowards by a whip cracking trainer is primitive and medieval. It stems from the old idea that we are superior to other species and have the right to hold dominion over them." —Dr. Desmond Morris, anthropologist, animal behaviorist, author *ps: con can debate whichever style suits them. this is my first debate online. and now I wait for the NEGATIVE :D
is evolution real

All 4 of your sources are in need of some serious debunking. Especially considering they tried to use big and fancy words to throw everyone off and so you could sound smarter. Sadly for you though I understood all of it. SOURCE 1: https://evolutionunderthemicroscope. Blogspot. Com/2011/02/homology-refutes-evolution. Html For those who couldn't be bothered reading it it was LITERALLY JUST using homology to "debunk" evolution. Here's why they are wrong or even flat out liars. The "scientist" who wrote this has a book out called "Evolution Under The Microscope: A Scientific Critique Of The Theory Of Evolution" and in that book as well as this blogpost he claims that homology and therefore evolution is false BECAUSE "In particular, As we discover more of how tissues are formed embryologically, Increasing doubt is being cast on much of the homology that has been perceived for so long at the morphological level. Notably, In view of the importance attached to the apparent homology of the vertebrate skeleton, And the weight given to embryology for identifying homology, It is especially relevant that vertebrae " a major component of the vertebrate skeleton " form embryologically in significantly different ways for different classes of vertebrate (such as mammals, Birds, Amphibians and fish), And even from different groups of early embryonic cells. " The problem with that logic is that we evolved from a variety of animals, Even starting out as cells with a nucleus so that is most likely why that had this finding. My source for my claim at the final sentence: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution#Taxonomy_of_Homo_sapiens SOURCE 2: https://creationtoday. Org/creationist-challenge/ The exact same is Source 1 just this time with more irrelevant nonsense. SOURCE 3: https://www. Defendingthechristianfaith. Org/dna-and-structural-homology-studies-that-argue-against-evolution. Html All this site did was make genuine conspiracy theories about being leaving out "critical information" without providing any evidence at all for these claims. But allow me to add why Evolution is in fact real. Read on this if you wish to be informed. This bring up genetic and fossilised evidence of evolution. Https://humanorigins. Si. Edu/evidence
God is real

My opponent, the instigator, has set no structure for this debate, so I will go about this in my own way. I would first like to point out that my opponent says that God has always been there, from the beginning of time. However, my opponent has supplied no evidence for this claim. I would also like to point out that my opponent has talked about God's love. However, love does not equate to God and most certainly does not equate to evidence of God. My opponent also says that God is always present, however, there is no way to sense his presence. There is also no reason to believe God is a male, if he even existed. God cannot be collected for data analysis, tested, seen, felt, heard, or smelt. If we cannot do that, then how can we differentiate from God and something that does not exist? My opponent has also claimed that God is the voice we hear, however, this statement cannot be supported. I would like to point out that God does not love any of us, and he does not love the one who does not believe in him. Any god that is willing to send you in to a burning place full of smoke, fire, blackness, and pain is not one that loves you. That is not an example of tough love, that's for sure. The Founding Fathers of the United States were atheists, agnostic, or deists. They had great minds, too. "scientists" and "great thinkers" are terms that are rather broad. For starters, scientists are not always right. Also, an electrical engineer is a scientist, but that does not mean they understand the spiritual or religious world. I would also like to point out that Hitler claims that some of his motives were Christian in nature. (http://www.evilbible.com...) I would also like to say that it is well known that Alexander the Great is the reason why so many people are Christians. When he was dominating, he spread and forced Christianity throughout the kingdom. You were supposed to accept it, or suffer the consequences. For years, it was actually illegal to translate the Bible to English. (http://www.bl.uk...) Many believe this is because if people knew everything it said, it would most likely make them believe the stories are false, and that the bible has no validity. My opponent's point has mentioned that The Hubble Space program found a galaxy with a cross in the middle of it. However, my opponent has failed to prove how a cross represents God. My opponent also failed to provide a source for any of his claims, although I do know that the last paragraph regarding the scientists is true.
God is real

First I would like to start off with saying that God loves you and he always will, and whoever is reading this, I am going to show the awesome power of God and his glory. Ever since the beginning of time (creation), God has been there. he created the universe and he has power over everything. We see his glory and power in the world all around us just by looking out into nature. The Hubble Space program found a galaxy with a cross in the middle of it! God is so great and constantly shows us his creativity. Also God created Laminin which is a protein molecule that holds the cell membrane together. How awesome is that!? God is so wonderful in all of his ways. Some of the greatest scientists and thinkers were Christians and they continually showed the wise dominion of God and his creation. Capernicus, Galileo, Tycho Braher and ect.
Being a Gay Christian Nazi is NOT an inconsistent position.

Being a christian nazi is consistenthttp://en.wikipedia.org...Hitler was achristian.Being a gay christian isn't inconsistnethttp://gaychurch.org... Being a gay nazi isn't inconsistent.http://www.amazon.com... Thats a book on gay nazism.http://fuckyeahgaynazis.tumblr.com...Thats full of pics of gay nazis being faboulas.Put it all togeather. Being a gay christian nazi is consistent!
Being a Gay Christian Nazi is NOT an inconsistent position.

Let History and simple logic guide our way. 1) The article you provided provides a contradiction it states clearly that : Evans wrote that Hitler believed that in the long run National Socialism and religion would not be able to co-exist, and stressed repeatedly that Nazism was a secular ideology, founded on modern science: "Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition" This disprove your claim that being a Christian-nazi is consistent. Your claim is flawed. 2) Hitler used to Christianity in his speeches to gain support from the German people. Most leaders use religion to gain support. The Christian faith strongly stresses its followers to be more like Jesus. I think we can agree on that. Hitler used fear and hatred to support his very strong anti-semantic views against the Jewish people. Who after all according to the Bible ,the Christian's most holy scripture that the Jewish people were God's Chosen people. Jesus himself was Jewish. And some ruff estimates of the Holocaust victims are 11 million and 6 million were Jewish. Murder! The sixth commandant states: you shall not murder/ kill, written plainly in the Bible. Failure to do so may result in eternal damnation according to the Bible. 3) Hitler the leader of the Nazi movement who shaped and help create the Nazi Party was VERY anti-homosexuality he persecuted many people simple because they were homosexual. And simply saying here is a book and posting a link saying "Thats full of pics of gay nazis being faboulas." provides no proof what so ever to help you in the debate. 4) Also when it comes to the main-stream Christianity it is strongly against Homosexuality in Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with another man he shall be stoned. A gruesome death sentence may I mind you. Just because some cult okays homosexuality does not change the accepted proof by the majority of the followers. And I can bet that the "gay church" was not around the time of the Nazis in the 1930's. 5) Your whole argument is inconsistent making being a gay christian nazi inconsistent. The BOP is on you, and you have failed to convince me on your point. I wait for further arguments.
school uniforms

PLAGIARISM My opponent has plagiarized his entire argument from the following website: . https://www.listland.com... I ask the voters to consider this when voting on this debate. My opponent hasn't really offered an argument. He simply copied and pasted the #7 paragraph from the source. I'm supposed to be debating him, not the author of the article. Here's my Pro argument: Uniforms actually reduce the chance of being bullied. If everybody is wearing the same thing, no one is going to be teased for what they wear. Uniforms also help the student save time when it comes to their morning routine. If you don't have to wonder what you are going to wear to school, you'll won't waste time deciding what to wear.
school uniforms

If you thought that requiring all students to wear uniforms can lessen the chances of bullying, you are dead wrong! In fact, it can actually increase the incidence of bullying, especially in school districts where violence rates are soaring. A 1999 study conducted by experts from Texas Southern University showed that bullying incidents increased by as much as 12%, after the implementation of mandatory uniform wearing. Echoing this sentiment is a 2007 study published in the Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice. According to the research, assaults increased by as much as 14 incidences yearly, right after the introduction of school uniforms. A similar finding was discovered by the Office of Education, Evaluation, and Management of the Miami-Dade County. Violence, especially in the middle schools, increased by a hundredfold after the students were required to wear uniforms.
Homosexuality is a disease

According to a Dutch study, gay men had significantly higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders than straight men. They also tend to be more concerned about their physical appearance than straight men. Also gay men tend do dress improperly, and more like a girl, which is just messed up. And lesbians were significantly more likely to experience depression than straight women. Homosexuals are also naturally aggressive. Through history, they've consistently been unethically trying to protest, for example, having naked protests and forcing their notion of sex.
Homosexuality is a disease

My opponent uses circular reasoning. He has the BoP in the debate, it is his job to prove to us that homosexuality is a disease. Thus, far, he has failed to do so.In the beginning my opponent states,In homosexuality, you don't want to reproduce correctly, with the opposite gender, and don't, but you still physically can even if they don't want to. A person who experiences extreme euphoria is in the state of extreme happiness and is hard to make them feeling only content. It's possible to make them feel content...This has no meaning whatsover, hte first sentece repeates exactly what I have already said. And gives the definition of euphoria, I don't see the connection of euphoria to being gay and no connection is made. And then:"[homosexuality] is still considered a disease/disorder. Homosexuality is more of a mental disorder "To prove his case, Pro must prove to us using an external source that this is true. Stating it is true does not make it true. I await Pro's response...
Homosexuality is a disease

The 7 characteristics of life is: composed of cells; different levels of organization (tissue, organ, organ system, etc); use energy; respond to stimuli; grow and develop; adapt to environment; REPRODUCE. Definition of disease: a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury. When you are born homosexual, you aren't able to produce, a disorder.
Homosexuality is a disease

It's not really side effects, running around naked trying to prove your cause happens why? because of them being gay. Also video gamers don't tend to be more agressive, less social life ,etc. That's stereotypical to the younger generation of video gamers. But that's a different debate. Also none of us know why people are born homosexual, accidents happen. Whether you believe in God or not, we are designed to reproduce, are we not? It's just logical thinking.
Homosexuality is a disease

Here Pro lists a study that gives some sideaffects of being gay. Its hard to believe the evidence if he does not cite the stduy he is refferring to. The reader may believe that because being gay is linked to other diseases, that it itself must be a disease. People who play video games tend to be more aggressive, less social life, and higher intelligence levels. Does this mean that video games is a disease? No, Pro is still failing to prove his case.
Every color is measurable

In my opponents rebuttal, he admitted that black is not a colour. He said that is the definition of darkness, or the "absence of the presence of colours". As such my opponent agrees with my previous statement that "To prove me wrong (i. e. that all colors are not measurable) my opponent will have to actually prove that black is a colour. " I bring this up here, as this is the one so called "colour" that we are not able to measure, but my opponent agrees with me that black is not a colour and so my task is easier. My opponent has pointed out to me that all he has to do to win this debate is to prove that not every color is measurable. This task is impossible for my opponent. I will show this impossibility in this round of the debate by introduction of the electromagnetic spectrum and specifically the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum (see picture). (1) The electromagnetic spectrum in the visible light region is what wavelength of radiation an object gives off and what we discern as colour. (2) As such any electromagnetic wave of a specific wavelength in this visible region has a different colour. (3) . http://www.gamonline.com...; /> Picture source. (4) For example, if we consider white in the electromagnetic spectrum it is the presence of all colours. Depending on the shade of red the wavelength is in the region of about 650 nm. Similarly, for green the wavelength is in the region of about 510 nm. (3) It is important to not the following in conclusion of this round, humans are only able to discern wavelengths within the visible spectrum. We are also able to measure any wavelength in the visible spectrum. Every wavelength in the visible spectrum correlates to a colour that we observe. As such we can measure any colour. I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) . http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...(2) . http://physics.info...(3) . http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov... (4) . http://www.gamonline.com...
Every color is measurable

Rebuttals: "To prove me wrong (i.e. that all colors are not measurable) my opponent will have to actually prove that black is a colour." No. I have to prove that not every color is measurable. Hold on, though. Definition? That is the definition of darkness. There is no color defined as being the "absence of the presence of colours". Define every colour. And don't define green as the color between blue and yellow in the spectrum; colored like grass or emeralds or don't define any color as colors merging together, forming that color because you aren't defining. You are simply telling me what colors do so to create the color you attempt to define.
Every color is measurable

My opponent has said we cannot measure black, and I agree. However, we should note that black is not a colour. (1) Black is defined as the absence of colour, so it is not a colour. As such any colour can be measured including white, which is a combination of colours. To prove me wrong (i. e. that all colors are not measurable) my opponent will have to actually prove that black is a colour. This goes against the laws of physics, and as such the my opponent cannot win this debate. I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) . http://www.physicsclassroom.com...
On Balance, President Nixon was Satisfactory.

To start off with, MY OPPONENT HAS VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THIS DEBATE THUS FORFEITING. However I will continue the debate...1) Creating The EPA Nixon founded the environmental protection agency, he wrote "As concern with the condition of our physical environment has intensified, it has become increasingly clear that we need to know more about the total environment-land, water and air. It also has become increasingly clear that only by reorganizing our Federal efforts can we develop that knowledge, and effectively ensure the protection, development and enhancement of the total environment itself.The Government's environmentally related activities have grown up piecemeal over the years. The time has come to organize them rationally and systematically. As a major step in this direction, I am transmitting today two reorganization plans: one to establish an Environmental Protection Agency, and one to establish, within the Department of Commerce, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...)Nixon started the government involvement in the environment, something other presidents have failed to do, thus satisfying his role as a protector of the USA.2) Ending The DraftNixon was the president who ultimately ended the draft. This contribution to american society decreased the negative views by the american people on their government, began steps towards equality for every gender, and overall bettered society.3) Desegregation"America"s most lamented president met with legislators from all seven Southern states, even traveling down to Louisiana to allay people"s fears. Over several months, he did everything in his power to make sure segregation would not only be stamped out, but that it"d die peacefully"and it worked. Segregation vanished in education and not a drop of blood was spilled. According to The New York Times, closet-racist Nixon probably did more for desegregation than all previous administrations combined, and he did it without sending the country spiraling into civil war." (http://listverse.com...)
On Balance, President Nixon was Satisfactory.

By Excepting, Opponent agrees to the following layout:R1: Acceptance/Definitions R2: Cases (No Rebuttal to Opponents Case)R3: RebuttalR4: Finalizing arguments(No New Arguements)Since the Resolution states "On Balance" Evidence and Arguments will be weighted against one another to find the most impact Argument. Failure to follow layout will result in Forfeiture.President Nixon - Richard Milhous Nixon was the 37th President of the United States, serving from 1969 to 1974 when he became the only U.S. president to resign the office.Satisfactory - fulfilling expectations or needs; acceptable, though not outstanding or perfect.
On Balance, President Nixon was Satisfactory.

Glad to see you on, i was so confused when it said i still had an arguement due...Again my opponent VIOLATED THE TERMS , Thus he forfeitsMy opponents only argument is "global king cocaine dealer with a fake history for peolpe to believe, good touch" My opponent is unable to provide supporting evidence... There is literally nothing else to say. The lack of support nullifys the claim.I PUSH MY CASE