BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Walmart=pro vs. the mall =con

But you are not defending Target or Sam's Club, only Wal-Mart, which is very low class and generally trashy. Like I said, the employee service is bad, many people besides myself agree on that. And even if I do ask an employee, again, many times more than not they won't have the product, especially if its something unique. They only carry the 'latest', meaning only new movies, best seller books, mass produced towels, ect. I wanted to find 'Monty Pythons The Meaning of Life', and oddly enough the first place I went was WalMart. Did they have it? No. But I found it at Babbages, located in the mall. I'm a fan of a comic entitled 'The Living Dead', and WalMart of course, does not carry graphic novels, while Borders did. Their stuff is also not as high quality as specialty stores that the mall has, like jewlery, clothes, and furniture. Its actually shorter to shop in a mall because you have a store designated for whatever thing you need to buy. But you can also stay in it longer because its more appealing than WalMart you may actually just WANT to. I've actually been on an errand in the mall sometimes, and accidentally meet a friend, and then we just walk around looking at stuff. You don't get that in a WalMart, because your first priority is to get out. The aisles may be crowded because theres alot of people, but thats precisely the problem. But a mall shop is spacey, and neat. Comfortable for everyone. You don't get that with WalMart. So, I'll just say to the voters to not vote on which building you like better, but by which of use defended ours better. Thanks
Walmart=pro vs. the mall =con

If you are looking for a higher class version, just go to Target. Just like WalMart. It has more space and is owned by walmart. They even have a wholesale club called Sams Club.. Once again, they are rebuilding a lot of walmart. If you can't find something, Just ask an employee to help you. It is that simple. Why would you want to spend a whole day at the mall when you can spend 30 minutes getting everything in one place. Normally if you tell them a problem, they will do there best to fix it. Shopping at WalMart is better than the mall. The aisles are crowded because of the popularity level they have.
Walmart=pro vs. the mall =con

Well that incredibly short and vague rebuttal did close to nothing to counter any of my positions. But I'll respond against them anyway. You may not shop there all day (god forbid at ALL) but you are still there for some time. One very rarly just goes in and out, usually a minimum of ten minutes is reguired to find and buy even one thing, not to mention if you have a shopping list. Most of that time is spent simply looking for the item around the store. Because of its size and quantity of aisles it takes a long time for one to find a general location, and because those aisles are so disorganized it can take several observations to find the item your searching for. The time I went into Walmart recently? That was to find those clear plastic page protectors, it took me 30 minutes to locate them. I first looked in school supplies, then office, then finally found them in CRAFTS. But a mall does not have this clutter, rather,each store has its own special purpose. Had I the time to reach the mall, I could have easily gone to the copy center were they more than likly would have a nice, viewable rack of various page protectors. You fail to give any real examples of what sets WalMart apart from any mall store. ll the items you mentioned can be purchased at a mall. I'll list them respectivly with your examples: American Eagle, Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, KB Kids, Babbages (for both), Matress Firm/Select Comfort, GNC, Classic Dental, Build-A-Bear, Vitamin World. How great is that, all in one mall. But Malls already have space. And will always out do Walmart on that unless they plan to make 16 foot wide aisles. So Malls still have more. Walmart sells the same basic stuff, sure, but malls have a wider and more personable selection. Never has WalMart had anything close to the selection of cool, and decorative stuff like at Coach house. Nor does it have a movie theatre like mine does. Here, I'll give you the link to its directory. http://www.chapelhillsmall.com... I defy you to look at it and still say Walmart sells more and better things. I won't even count the Kmart that is there, and it STILL beats crummy ol WalMart. I've even talked to WalMart employees (hard as THAT endevor was) about some items and they will still point me in the malls direction. Why? Because they don't have it. The Mall does. theres even things at the mall that are better priced than WalMart (always low prices? I don't think so). So The mall still beats Walmart.
Walmart=pro vs. the mall =con

"Malls are much more eye pleasing than WalMart" Currently this might be true. But when you look at most WalMart's, they are getting redone to be more "eye pleasing". It does not need to be well decorated because you just shop there. You don't stay there all day. Walmart sells many more things than the mall. Walmart has more varietys. They sell clothes, food, toys, movies and video games, furniture, cleaning items and dental. They even have a holiday section and a pharmacy. How great is that. It is all in one store. For space issues, that is one thing that they are working on renovating. They want to make the aisles bigger so when there are a lot of people, there will be space there.
Walmart=pro vs. the mall =con

The mall is clearly better than Wal Mart for a number of reasons 1) Specialization: Each store is specialized in a certain field most of te time. They all offer more towards an individual cause than any walmart does. Wal Mart is about generic's, things that apply to everyone. For instance, one of the malls I go to is specifically set up to sell movies. I was able to buy the 'Thumb' sixtology that Wal Mart did not and probably has never sold ever. The mall also has a Borders. Just going in there you can see that their selection is FAR superior than the 1 row of Stphen King's latest, the SPiderwick Chronicles, and any of the New York best sellrs. Also, theres a plethora of clothing stores that dwarf WalMarts generic brands. 2) Neatness: I hadn't shopped at a WalMart for about 6 months, then I went back to one and remembered why. The store is trashy. Its hard to find things, its cramped, and aisles are constantly in disaray. Its a mad house, and I don't see how anyone manages to find anything at all. But Mall shops take a bit more pride in their organization. They've got things neat and tidy, and because the store is so small, they can instantly fix anything that's been botched up. Much more pleasant to be in. 3) Employee's: Its impossible to find them in a WalMart, and when you do they are not doing anything but walking, and ignoring costomers. In a Mall, because of the shops size, and vaccancy, employee's are always willing/able to help you out. I've never entered a shop without someone coming up to me and asking if I needed help finding anything. Usually I just am browsing, but the gesture is still appreciated. Walmart employee's also have a trend of being unhappy, mopy people. This may just be the people themselves, but I don't think its unreasonable to say they just HATE their job. 4) Space: Malls are much more roomy than walmart is. Even when it is crowded in malls, there's still a good amount of elbow room. The last time I checked, a regular WalMart aisle was as big, if not smaller, than the amount of space my arms could reach out, so about 5 feet. Even the main walkways which are about 8-10 feet across are smaller than a malls walk ways. 5) Decor: Malls are much more eye pleasing than WalMart. The roomyness of the hall ways, the 2 levels (or more, and general decorations are much better than a common WalMart. The one I go to has a nice little forest in the center, and little ponds in places. The Stores also jazz up their shops because they have that freedom of being their own shop. Spencer's and Hot Topic are the best examples, even though I don't shop there. WalMart has to be plain because its made for everybody, and can't seem to slide towards any specific trend. Boring and generic. These are my reasons, now I'd like to hear yours.
Value of Life: Human Life over Animal Life

Sorry I forgot to cite my sources for my last argument. Sources: (1)Oxford Dictionary of English (2)http://mycropht.wordpress.com... One reason humans are superior is their creation of the art of persuasion. The shelter employees do a very good job of persuading people to adopt a shelter pet. Since I feel the whole shelter argument is beside the point, I will leave you with this: the pets they show you on TV are the gentlest ones they can find. If you think shelter pets are great, you probably haven't had one (unless, of course, you are really lucky). I would also like to say that humans do deserve the "luxuries" we have, since we created them. After all, aren't the people reading this on their computer enjoying those "luxuries" right now? My opponent acts like he/she is above this, which, evidently, is not true. Also, my opponent stated "you are implying that having superior technology makes them superior to the human race entirely" and "Yes, you would be superior... ON THE FOOD CHAIN" However, con is completely missing the point of the debate. We want to know if human life is superior to the lives of other animals. Of course, this is a matter of opinion, which is why we're debating in the first place. The reality is, humans are not superior to animals in all aspects (for example, lions may have bigger teeth than us). The question is, are humans superior to animals in MOST aspects? Here is some support of why humans are superior: *As I said before, humans, who should be in the middle of the food chain, are on the top of it. *Humans domesticated animals. Not lions. Not wolves. Not beetles or ants. Humans. *Humans have created things such as written language, empires, civilization, art, mathematics, and even modern technology. *Humans are the only animals that know how the universe really works. *Humans created a website where people can debate their personal beliefs *Humans discovered E=mc2 (squared)- a key to understanding how things work *Humans had the power to destroy the environment, and are now using their knowledge of math and science to create ways of protecting it. *Humans are currently exploring the universe, and are starting to prepare for a journey into deep space... THAT is what sets us apart form other animals. Our intellect and creativity is unlike that of any other being on Earth. Seriously, get to the heart of the matter. We wouldn't even be debating this right now if people didn't have the possibility of being superior. Human beings have, and will continue, changing the world.
Value of Life: Human Life over Animal Life

I do agree that animals do not deserve to be tortured. But the reality is, animals don't have the same rights as humans. If we were "equal" to animals, we would be able to join a pack of wolves as if we were one of them. However, the wolves wouldn't see it that way. In the same way, you can't give a lion an iPod and a television set and expect them to use it as we would. Animals and humans are not the same, and that is okay. My opponent said that animals at the shelter are "put down" after a few weeks if they are not adopted. I'm not saying this is untrue. But the "abandonment" by their owners really means the animals have mental issues. If you wanted to take your cat with you, you could always buy a cat carrier and take it wherever you're moving. And the reality is, when an animal is euthanized, it's completely painless. No suffering required. I believe they should do this to humans that need it, too, but that's another debate. There's a reason animals are put down. As for overpopulation, people are, no doubt, valuing human life over those of animals. This is human instinct. I believe that early humans had to believe this to survive. If you wanted you species to live, you had to make sure humans reproduced before you became concerned about another animal. It's selfish, I know, but it is nature. I'm pretty sure if another animal was the superior species, they would be the same way. On this very website, there was an opinion section that talked about helping other countries. One person said that we needed to fix the problems with our own country before helping others. I do have to admit, that person had a point. The human race is very similar. We have so many problems we need to fix before we move on to saving animals. I would also like to point out that animals humans consider to need "rights" are closer to us in evolutionary terms. For example, most people don't think of a black widow spider needing "rights" when it nearly kills you. Plants are also living things. Once again, they are much farther away from us in evolutionary terms. When you pick a flower, we don't consider that "murdering" a plant. There's a reason people choose to support animal rights and not plant rights. Finally, you do have to realize that when you eat steak or chicken, you are superior to the cows and chickens. Whenever you eat anything, you have to understand that you are destroying a life, whether animal or plant. When you wash your hands, you are killing bacteria. But that's the way nature is. Nothing will ever be equal. And though it may be hard to accept, there will be times you need to. Source: Smetanka, Cindy A., and David K.C. Cooper. "Animal-to-Human Organ Transplantation Is Ethical." Biomedical Ethics. Ed. Viqi Wagner. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "The Ethics Debate in Relation to Xenotransplantation." Scientific and Technical Review 24.1 (Apr. 2005): 335-342. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Dec. 2012. P.S. This is my first debate , too. Good luck!
People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

To summarise the debate, Pro, upon whom rests the burden of proof made the following arguments (which I have paraphrased). 1: The human population of the planet is too high/unsustainable. 2: Those aged over 55 are no longer productive. 3: Killing the 'surplus' over 55 years olds would solve the world's alleged 'overpopulation'. I will summarise my objections to each point. 1: Stating that the population is too high is a purely subjective statement with no value, too high for what? It is also clear that the population is clearly being sustained, as the global population is continuing to rise. This counterargument was never addressed. As a result it was conceded. As there is no overpopulation crisis there is no need to cull any section of society therefore the Pro position is completely negated. 2: I presented clear examples of those aged over 55 who continued to lead highly productive lives, the most persuasive of these would be Stephen Hawking, an eminent scientist at the age of 67. This evidence was not even acknowledged by my opponent. As a result it was conceded. As we can see that the some over 55's are productive, there is no rational reason to kill off all over 55's. My opponents argument is negated. 3: I suggested to my opponent that we assume the over 55's comprised approximately 15% of the worlds population. This speculation was not challenged by my opponent. My opponent stated that "we do not have enough resources to sustain a population over 6 billion people, never the less half a billion". I pointed out that, a) reducing the worlds population by 15% would not reduce it to what my opponent would consider sustainable. (6 billion, reduced by 15% leaves you with a population of over 5 billion). b) this measure having no effect on the birth rate would not in the long term reduce or maintain the population at the levels desired by my opponent. These points were not acknowledged, therefore they were conceded. We can therefore conclude that the world is not overpopulated, that the over 55's do not comprise a non-productive demographic, that culling them would not solve the non-existent over population crisis. My opponent has consistently failed, indeed refused to defend his position, or address any counterarguments. Indeed he has argued against his own position by declaring that there should be a cessation of breeding to solve the problems of 'overpopulation' (or indeed to solve the problems of having a population what so ever). Finally he has admitted he was simply here to 'screw off'.
People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

China has devastated there environment and the land is turning to desert my sick minded opponent would let society die so that he can justify his CON position. He does not understand the affects of over-population on the environment. All his claims where lies. http://en.wikipedia.org... We must save the earth rather then to let the environmentalists ravage against the Earth for there cult of personality of global industrialization and dominance! They are the will to power even the teeth they bite with they stole everything they have stolen! .... ..... ..... .. . I thank my opponent for finally realizing that this debate was supposed to be nonsense and no one would advocate such a cruel and awful position. This debate was my first debate so I just wanted to screw off and test peoples reactions, to see how people would respond and I am amazed that there are actually very good debaters on this site who take this seriously, who are much better than I. I am sorry if I had annoyed and left the people watching this debate into a state of mental insanity.
People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

Silence SLAVE!!! I Am your GoD YOu worship ME ONLy ME!!!YOu peasent i DEFY U!!!! MY REASON and Logic are supurb and unquestioned I am your athority. http://en.wikipedia.org... Have you no sense of who to worship I think NOT I defy logic reason thinking debating. Do no question my athority.NOw silence slave and listen to my every comand (Remember peasents get whiped on tuesdays and saturdays) You will call me emporer Joe !!! Silence do not question what I say or what i do.Now I I will do such things which I yet know not, but they shall be the terror of the world. You are slave I am GOD do I make that clear? DO I dont what! slave you are less than a worthless ant to be crushed by my mighty power! Parasites are classified based on their interactions with their hosts and on their life cycles. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... NOW SLAVE I will tell you a short story called ratzels and Gretzels: One day RAtzels and Gretzels vhere walking through them tropical jungles to hunt polar bears eating zebras in the parking lot.They Found a house made out of dollar bills. "Hmm it looks tasty says ratzels and gretzels" The evil Kapitalistick entrepreneur said " comes in little hampsters um i mean childs rats" So RAtzles and gretzles walk into the industrial factory and are eaten by the banking dogs. The walls we filled with walls with mold knifes hit the workers in the faces or something well um ya so like well maybe!! um what was them saying what the oh ya.So Ratzles and gretzles dead courpes roll down the hill into the money pot.But ratzles wakes up and throws the ring into the boiling pot and sauron ( i mean the entrepeneur) so ya they go home to their slave comunes XDXDXDXD THE END MOral of them storys: DONT HAVE CHILDREN THEY STUPID LIKE RATZLES AND GRETZLES we can end the humans populoatiuon through breeding Now here are my links to my evidence http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

With the utmost of respect I feel that my opponent has again valid to substantiate his case or address my counterpoints. Hopefully this will be rectified in rounds 4 and 5. "Out of the insanity and the birth of tragedy I most destroy this monster of an opponent who blindly and ignorantly assumes that there are less humans then supposed to be." I do not consider myself monstrous, blind nor ignorant and I do not consider this appropriate language in a debate. I have not stated that "there are less humans then supposed to be", I have merely point out the facts concerning the population. These facts have been ignored. "When you look at the world see all of nature which has been destroyed ever since the Industrial Revolution, you see the forest which have been deforested and ecosystems and habitats devastated by the Kapitalists who claim nature is mans property." The argument is not has man destroyed nature, or has man changed nature. The argument is, is the world over populated and is the method suggested by my opponent a viable one for solving this problem. The facts clearly show that the world is not over-populated, and that this stated method would not in any case solve any over population. I would like to point however that I live in the country that started the industrial revolution, in a particularly densely populated county, I can see trees from my house. About ten minutes away (walking) is a wooded national park, about twenty minutes in another direction is a forest. I regularly see field mice, rabbits foxes and badgers. I do not deny that man has greatly impacted nature, but it is still there, and food production is at an all time high. I regard that nature is man's property, it would be nice if we took greater care, but it will still be there when the population hits 7 billion, or indeed 17 billion. "Property is coercive because when someone owns something which I don't have thats theft and violence of the greatest type. " This comment appears to make no sense in the context of the debate, and I would ask my opponent to clarify it. "I conclude that my opponent is dualist." You should debate the subject of the debate not the perceived nature of the debater, for all you know I am playing devils advocate. In any case I fail to understand the accusation. I would caution my opponent that the burden of proof is upon them, to win the debate they must show that the worlds population is too high, unsustainable, and that the culling of the over 55's would be an effective solution.
People over the Age of 55 should be put to sleep for population reduction

Out of the insanity and the birth of tragedy I most destroy this monster of an opponent who blindly and ignorantly assumes that there are less humans then supposed to be. When you look at the world see all of nature which has been destroyed ever since the Industrial Revolution, you see the forest which have been deforested and ecosystems and habitats devastated by the Kapitalists who claim nature is mans property. Property is coercive because when someone owns something which I don't have thats theft and violence of the greatest type. When people own property they exploit people who don't have the property. Look at the Amazon.com, how the Kapitalists cut down the forests, deserts spreading throughout the world and killing species of animals. I conclude that my opponent is dualist.