BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Rights

First of all, I am sorry that I violated that rule, in the third round I won't post my rebuttals, and only the conclusion in my last round. My opponent can't post his defense also next round, if he does, then I get to post my defense also. I will go onto my rebuttals of my opponent's argument in this round. RebuttalsMy opponent agrees with my definition at first when he said that animals are non-human animals. Then he suddenly says that animals are the same as us. In the definition of animal in the debate, it says that human does not count as animal, as it says in Merriam Webster. My opponent can't have a definiton change in the last round, or else it would be unfair because I can't make new arguments, and it is bad conduct, and you should lose if you suddenly change the definitions in the last round, then there is no point to debate about it. My opponent also says that animals are the same as us, they both need food and water, and they need to rest. My opponent says that animals are much more common that we think. Not true. Animals are different from humans because most animals are dumber then us, most animals can't use thumbs, and most animals can't communicate, and humans rule the world. Humans can use technology [1] Humans are more unique, and better than the other animals. Also, humans aren't animals, so we can't say that they are the same as us, or more common that we think. The comparison that my opponent makes of a higher power treating us like dirt is WRONG. First of all, it is not possible, as humans are the highest, and smarter and better than other animals, and humans are not animals, as it says in the definitions, so Pro CANNOT make a comparison with an animal and a non-animal being the same thing, as they are different things, and cannot be compared like that. It does not make an common sense. Just because animals drink and eat doesn't mean they are the same as us. My opponent uses wikipedia as a source, but he does not give any link, only the main heading to wikipedia. That is a bad source, as the main head of wikipedia does not have any source or relationship to animal rights, and the topic that we are debating about. My opponent says that animals also need to avoid suffering. Then what about poachers, or animal testing? We can't ban them, as animal testing is good for us humans.
Animal Rights

As you can see, my opponent clearly violated the rules. Round 1 was FOR ACCEPTANCE ONLY. However, my opponent decided to place down some arguments. Anyway, I will place down my arguments. Animal rights are important for several reasons. First of all, what are animal rights? Animal rights is the idea that some, or all, non-human animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives and that their most basic interests"such as the need to avoid suffering"should be afforded the same consideration as similar interests of human beings (1). Animals are just as alive as we are. Why does that mean that they shouldn't have the same basic needs as us? Animals need food and water like us. They need rest and a home like us. Animals have much more in common with us the an we think. It would be very cruel to deny animals these rights. We would not like it if a higher power treated humans like dirt. This is an argument of common sense. Please vote for Pro! Sources (1) en.m.wikipedia.org
Animal Rights

Hello. I am doing several debates on the Big Issues. This is my third. The topic for this debate is animal rights. Should we give animals rights? That is what we will discuss in this debate. For the first round, I will explain the rules and my opponent will accept. I am for animal rights while my opponent is against animal rights. For the second round, I will place arguments and my opponent will provide a counter-framework. For the third round, my opponent and I will rebut the arguments placed in round 2. Please do not forfeit rounds. Should any rounds be forfeited, voters should be aware of that and penalize that person by voting for the other person.
Is god real

Firstly, I would agree with you that in the past that the church was curupted but that isn't because if god so it can't prove that he's not real. Secondly, even the most primitive cells ever discovered are more complex than a space shuttle. Also even with all of our expertise humans haven't been able to even make a primitive cell without starting with other life so how could it ever happen naturally? I think that the massive improbability of life proves that there must be some creator.
Is god real

The pope is a perfect counter example of your point 1. In medieval times, the pope would practically steal money from you whilst becoming more powerful by enforcing Christianity. Point 2 is a huge misconception about abiogenesis. When life originated, it was in the most simple form possible. Prokaryotic cells were probably the very first life form to exist. These require very basic organic molecules to create which existed on the early earth. Miller experiment shows this. 500 characters????
Is god real

In my opinion god is real because otherwise people would never bother thinking about it. If God wasn't real there would be no reason to belive in him because it wouldn't be beneficial. Also it's imposing to make life spontaneously despite the fact that many scientists think otherwise. For example, if you put an animal in a blender, all the molecules to make an animal are there but unless you use life to do it, it is impossible to create an animal from it. Think about it.
Gay Marriage

Really? Public nudity? Next thing you liberals are gong to at that pefophilia is OK because that's someone's choice. I actually proposed unlic nudity so you could say how ridiculous it is, but apparently you believe that it is OK. Truth be tod Either way, just because the government decides what marriage is doesn't mean anything, if there was a big pile if Bull Sh*t and government passed a law saying that it was an ice cream Sunday it's still a pile of bull sh*t, a law saying otherwise doesn't change anything. And in the constitution, nowhere Is the federal government given the power to define marriage, under the tenth amendment this power should be given to the states or to the people. And really, you got to be kidding me, Germany has these scrum running rampant raping people, and Muslim=terrorists, read the Quran, and global warming is stupid, in 100 years the temperature goes up by 1 degree, that's not going to while out the human race, that's stupid. And you want to know what else, this terrorist issue got so bad that the Dali lama said we should prevent Muslims from entering Europe, the Dali Lama, you should listen to him. The government is never granted the power to define marriage, not the environment. Also, I couldn't care less about what the supreme court says, it is never granted that power. Their edict is void it's not a law.
Gay Marriage

Public nudity hurts no one, yet if you do it you go to jail, what an injustice! And your argument that not acknowledging gay marriage is discrimination is utter nonsense, you aren't saying that because you are gay you can't marry, all that is happening is two people want to "marry" each other, but they can't because it wouldn't be marriage, we don't really care who they are attracted to, a traditional marriage system would allow for 1 man to marry 1 woman, wanting something other than what is facilitated doesn't entitle you to anything. And according to you a man marrying little kids would be acceptable because only pedophilia is banned, not pedophile marriage. And I couldn't care less what the pope says, he also thinks that global warming is a national security crisis while hundreds of thousands of terrorists flooding Europe isn't, in fact he thinks we should bring over MORE terrorists! And another thing, the environment is never granted the power to define marriage, and according to the 10th amendment this power should be granted to the states respectively or to the people, I believe it should be granted to the people the church and marriage should be privatized. Gay marriage is just flat out stupid, all that's happening is a couple of perverts pay hundreds of dollars for a piece of paper ad that they could pay extra taxes for the rest of their lives, its stupid, you don't need some paper to live together, and paying more taxes isn't going to help your marriage.
Gay Marriage

I think gay marriage should be allowed, because it's not harming straight people. Banning gays marring each other will not make them straight, so we might as well as allow them to marry. Also, everybody should have the right to marry, so only allowing people who marry to be straight is just unfair. Also for the people who say that 'Becuz teh biball sed so we shouldaint allow dam gays to marry meens tey shouldaint marry', the bible never condemned gay marriage, it only said 'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.' (Leviticus 18:22) and 'A man who has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' (Leviticus 20:13). These only say that gay sex is a sin, no gay marriage. Some gays marry and do not have sex, because they don't like it. Also, the pope said in an interview"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Also, I think that the bible is not a good enough argument- even if it is all true, gay marriage might still be allowed, because of the pope's neutral stance on it. Sources: https://www.biblegateway.com... https://www.biblegateway.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... More info: https://www.theguardian.com...
Pimps should have their own trade association

. http://www.debate.org... Also, although prostitution is illegal, I don't think pimping is, is it? And even if it is, NAESA could provide its members with top lawyers who could argue that a pimp was acting as a good citizen. How? Well, if you are a stranger in town you might ask a taxi driver to recommend a good restaurant and to take you there. The driver would ask you what cuisine you prefer and what your budget is and take you to a suitable eatery, and in return for the driver's client referral he might get a financial kickback from the restaurant owner. Similarly, if a gentleman is away on business and he is missing the attentions of his wife, he might approach a local man who looks streetwise and ask him if he knows of any young ladies in the neighbourhood who might be willing to engage in a discreet exchange of courtesies in return for cash. The pimp would ask the lonely gentleman what sort of girl he had in mind and how much he was willing to spend and then introduce him to a suitable prostitute, from whom he would take a cut. The lawyers would argue that there's no legal difference between a taxi driver referring a tourist to a restaurant and receiving payment in recognition of this act and a pimp referring a businessman to a prostitute and receiving similar remuneration. I'm sure the magistrate would agree that there was no case to answer and release the pimp in the dock without any stain on his character. Finally, do rentboys have pimps? Surely they would be pimpesses? If so, I wonder what one would look like. Something like this perhaps? . http://www.debate.org... Thank you.
Pimps should have their own trade association

It would not be in the best interests of pimps to have their own trade association.Pimping is illegal in the UK (1), and therefore pimps need to be shadowy, creepy and unidentifiable. Otherwise they will be prosecuted for the crime of controlling prostitution for personal gain.If they had their own trade association, then police would only need to get a list of members and they would all get sent to prison.Currently, the crime of controlling prostitution for personal gain carries a maximum prison sentence of 5 or 2 years, depending on the presence of coercion. (1)Pro argues that "punters with a social conscience would only source girls from NAESA members," but surely not to the extent of liaising with prison inmates - apart from the logistical difficulties, there is a definite seediness in this kind of transaction.In terms of benefit to prostitutes themselves - if (as Pro argues) pimps provide a valuable service, then having all the pimps sent to prison would be a definite loss to these women and rentboys.(1) http://www.cps.gov.uk...
Pimps should have their own trade association

The decent, honest gentlemen who walk the streets at night soliciting tricks for their hoes do not enjoy a good public image. That's because the whoreticulture industry does not have a trade association to represent the interests of mack daddies, gash-brokers, ho-traders, minge-consultants, tart-farmers and other punter-hunters. Sadly, all too often pimps are portrayed in the media and politics as exploitative and violent men who traffic vulnerable young women into the country, get them addicted to crack cocaine, then force them to have sex with strangers in return for their fix of drugs, but the reality is that many of these urbane entrepreneurs not only refer valuable business to their prostitutes and allow them to keep much of the fee, but they also provide their girls with physical protection, often in poor weather conditions and at very unsocial hours. That's why I am arguing that pimps should have their own trade association to put their side of the story forward to the public. This body could introduce a code of conduct that members must comply with and have a professional-sounding name such as The National Association of Ethical Soliciting Agents (NAESA) to give it credibility. This way, punters with a social conscience would only source girls from NAESA members, thus raising the professional standards and image of the whoreticulture industry as a whole. Thank you.
Donald Trump: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

What have Iraq and Syria done to us? Nothing. You must have misunderstood. It is not Iraq and Syria murdering innocent people, it is ISIS, a rising terrorist group. Those kinds of people caused 9/11. And they are growing in strength. Obama isn't doing anything. Clinton won't do anything. ISIS sends videos via YouTube and social media of beheading their prisoners. Those prisoners aren't just people from foreign countries. Those are also people from the United States. What happens when Donald Trump loses his touch? He has never lost his touch. He is a multibillionaire. And if he did, he would get it back. That's what America needs right now. A strong president. And it isn't our government's job to help people looking for a better life, if they're coming illegally. They have broken the law the second they put their feet on the ground. It is our duty to help people coming in legally. It wouldn't be too hard for them. The only reason it gets hard is the crazy amount of illegal Mexicans Obama is bringing in. He takes them in, and in doing so they take up the space meant for legal immigrants. With the amounts of many Syrians coming in to flee ISIS (coming back to that point), we can't afford them. Thank you for hearing me out.
Donald Trump: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Thank you for posting your debate blackhawkbunny34. No Dona;d Trump Simple statement. Donald Trump is a successful businessman, right? What happens when Donald Trump loses his touch? I've done some research and found that Donald Trump has some unstable qualities. He declared himself god in his last debate. Also, what have Iraq and Syria done to us? WHY do you we need to blow them off the face of the Earth? That could start a world war that would end very badly. It's our government's job, also, to help people looking for a better life coming to the states. In closing, we as a union should not vote for Donald Trump. It will end badly.
Donald Trump: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Hey, guys. I know a lot of you are Trump haters and want to vote against me. Please judge not on the topic but on the debaters and how we present our facts and evidence. This is my opening argument, and even though my competitor did not take the time to present one, I will do so. Donald Trump is a successful businessman. For a country that's eighteen trillion dollars in debt, I would think that would help America. People think that Trump is too straightforward. President Obama is not straightforward. Look what happened with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. They are a tiny terrorist group. It is them versus the United States, the most powerful country on the planet. Why haven't we blown them off the face of the earth? When you're straightforward, like Trump, then you know what to do. You put troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria and end them. Another issue is illegal immigration. People like Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are helping those people. There is a reason why it's called "illegal". You don't accept these people, they will take up the space for many Syrian refugees coming in legally. You deport them. Finally, let's turn to the Democratic party. Already we see problems. Hilary Clinton is under FBI investigation for her emails as First Lady when her husband, Bill Clinton, was president. Bernie Sanders is a socialist, which is the next closest thing to communism, which is the next closest thing to Hitler. We don't need an American Hitler.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

1. People wont benefit from judges creating racially balanced schools because your forcing it upon kids and parents. If they don"t want that, then they don"t want it. Theres no other way around it. Why should we force parents to make their kids go to racially balanced schools? When kids at a diverse school ONLY stay within themselves. It"s the same as leaving your child in a School that"s not racially balanced. 2.Why should we have just one school that"s not racially balanced ? why cant people have options? YES ! they would choose a school with the same ethnicity" but there should be more than one. 3.My fault CLARY >:O ". Anyways. What I meant to say was that, Race should be used as a school assignment. Therefore everyone that attends the school and wont feel left out because your around your own kind. Everyone would feel comfortable, and wont have to worry about a certain race thinking their stronger. So that answered your question :)
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Answer to #1: In the beginning of course kids are going to stick with people the same race as them, but as time passes they will eventually get accustomed to it and start getting along with each other. Kids adapt to new environment easily, and the more they are exposed to diversity at the schools the more comfortable they are going to be with the idea. Answer to #2: I am not saying that people aren"t going to get bulled. Bullying doesn"t mean you have more power than the other person. People that attend school that have mostly the same ethnic background as them still get bullied. When I say equal power I mean they will have the same education and will have the same opportunity to develop economically in the future. Answer to #3: We are forcing people to attend other schools for the better. We are not trying to hurt them in anyway. Right now people might not see the benefits from this but in a couple of years you will be thanking us.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Question #1: Why should we create racially balanced schools & force students to go to school with different races when they wouldn"t even stick together? ( still means students would be segregated) Question #2 You say that no one would have more power, but how are you so sure that no one would get bullied in the school ? Question#3 Why should we force people do something they don't want to do ? there is something called". RIGHTS!
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced. Assertion #1 Courts should not be able to create racially balanced schools! -Students and society will not benefit when more children are able to attend racially integrated schools. Courts believe that it will; and they use surveys to get "Answers". But surveys may not be 100% accurate. On top of that, they only surveyed African Americans and Latinos. If you want accurate answers, then actually test a school that is DIVERSE (that"s the whole point right?) You may believe that it will benefit students and society when students are able to attend racially integrated schools" but groups don"t stick together even in a diverse school students tend to stay within themselves. Assertion #2 Judges should not be able to tell parents where their children must attend school. -In what world should we allow judges to make decisions on where OUR children go to school? (Speaking for parents) That literally takes away everyone"s rights. Not only do parents miss out on the schools quality, but also in the location. Judges should give parents CHOICES! If judges gave parents 6 choices on where their child can attend school; that"ll equality in education! This is what every child deserves! " Don"t you think? Assertion#3 Race should not be used as a basis for school assignment. Why should race be used as a basis for school assignment anyway? That creates segregation and leads to people feeling left out when that can all be avoided. If race was actually used as a basis for school assignment then that would create an achievement gap between black and white students and that goes against "Browns Promise" of equal educational opportunities. That"s not fair! Parents just wants\better education for their kids; but also want their kids to feel what it"s like to be in a diverse community. If race were not used as a basis; Children will be less lonely, safer, and academics improve! This is what every parent wants for their child.
Courts have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools

Assertion #1: I believe that courts should have the responsibility to create racially balanced schools. In Boston public schools were segregated by race, and the only way to desegregate them was by the court-odder in 1947 that made busses transfer the kids to other school. Blacks and whites were not happy with this decision, and if they were not forced to do it, they would have never done it willingly. There are a lot of benefits to having racially balanced schools; one is that everybody gets better and equal education. Assertion #2: Students and society also benefit when more children are able to attend racially integrated schools. Schools prepare kids for the diverse world that we live in. Also people would view each other equally; no one would have more privileges or more power than other. Assertion #3: Courts may not end segregation completely but it can reduce the effect of racial discrimination. Since no one but the judge has the power to force school to be more diverse, this is the only way to make a change. People may not like it at first but eventually people will get used to it.
White Nationalism

You are not who I was looking for but I suppose I didn't send the request out right. Anyway I did not mean racism I meant pride. If a country is and has always been predominantly white with an established culture I think they have the right to keep it that way. I believe this to be true for blacks, asians, latinos, etc. I do not think this mean people should be discriminated against this just the native culture should be held intact. I'm sure there are many people across the globe who wished for the same thing (I. indigenous Americans, Canadians, Australians).