BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All zoos should be banned

This house believes that we should ban zoos on global scale as it has been proved that animals in captivity live for less time than animals in the wild. Some zoos are also trying to conserve the animal and help it to regain its numbers however keeping animals in captivity is not the right way to increase animal population. Instead we should just create numerous, very large wildlife reserves, where the animals are allowed to roam freely and thus they will have a higher chance of breeding because they are in their natural environment. The animals can also live much longer in the wild and we could possibly increase their lifespan by keeping the animals in wildlife reserves rather than zoos where they are used as entertainment, and very rarely to actually better the cause of the animal
School laws ought not to limit civil rights

Although I was once like you, desiring only to stand on my soapbox (or lunch table) and with zeal let my thoughts, opinion and beliefs spread like wild fire across the campus. For the most part, I was granted this right in modicum and although this felt insufficient of my First Amendment rights granted by our great civil contract between government and citizen, the US Constitution. However, in my arguments I will position myself in as the "Con" and will argue against both of your main contentions. Summarized below: To you first contention, that "Schools are not maintaining our utilitarian society by depriving us of this right with limits," Is a misunderstanding of limitation of your rights as presented and debated in our history and our court systems. The school instilling limits is within the governments purview, and certainly in within the schools. Your first amendment right only extends to the point where it runs up against the following barriers; does the speech insight violence, cause clear and present danger, displays of obscenity, conflict with other legitimate social or governmental interest as well as Time, place and manner restrictions (TPM). As long as the school is limiting the speech within these guidelines, and most do so for student protection as you mention, then their limitations are exactly to the letter of the rights to free speech. As for your second contention, if the schools restrictions are in congruence with the freedom of speech limitation, its rules is not superseding nor stipulating a superior power over the federal governments. As you mentioned the public school systems are funded by the government and as such cannot and does not rise above it but must meet its laws.
School laws ought not to limit civil rights

Being in high school, I found out that my first amendment of "freedom of speech" was liimited once I set foot on to school grounds, I am currently protesting this. Although, schools across america do have a right to set rules and laws to protect the students, this is one right that we should value and should not be demolished becasue of a school's decisions. Today, I argue the affrimitive in the topic of School laws ought not to limit civil rights. Equality will be valued in my arguement. Contention one: Schools are funded by our government, therfore should stay true to the government.Our government has made America a utiliatarian country by providing us our rights. Our right to speak our opinion rightfully and proudly. Schools, are not maintain our untiliatrain society by depriving us of this right with limits. If I believe that being atheist is a religion of the devil, i should proud to stay my postition on that just as much as the atheist have a right to plead evoultion over creation. Being entilited to your opinion defines who you are and gives each person individuality. Being an american citizen you are entitled to have a voice, as stated in many of our rights. One of the limits all schools enforce, is no racial comments. Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery and racism in the civil war, but sayiing that you feel whites are superior, should not be punished unless you carry out an act of proveing that, like denying a black man a job do to his color. Say what you will and one will not be punished, but enforce the action to prove it, you will be punished. The first amendment says "the freedom to practice your religion". If I practice my religion it were to say that our belief is superior to other religions that I should have to the right to exercise my religion by saying, not performing, that we are superior. Contention two:America is utilitarian due to our rights.Other countries do not have the rights that we have and those are usually the countries with the must human rights abuses. We should be thankful that we are not a country that has encontered human rights abuses by our government. Why have we not encontered these human rights abuses? Because we have rights that let the citizens have a voice in society, personal life, as well as the governmenet, but still keeping our government powerful. If we havent encontered abuse by our government becasue of therse rights, why should we not exercise those rights. We dont want human rights abuse, so schools depriving us of these rights with limits is technically abusing our rights as well as weaken the government; the schools laws being valued about the governement rights, is practically saying that the school has more power than our government and that is not only wrong, but immoral considering that the government funds our schools. I urge you to support the affrimative in this case to help my protest to keep the rights that we deserve in action for me and colleagues.
Life is most likely intelligently designed

Yo, we're freaking walking computers running our genetic code. We are obviously programmed by an intelligent designer; you don't see computers randomly arising from inert matter anywhere in nature, and Louis Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation centuries ago. As far as I'm aware, it's a dichotomy and there is no third option: life either came about randomly, or it was designed intelligently. Life is obviously intelligently designed, and this debate is making Pasteur do somersaults in his grave.
Life is most likely intelligently designed

Debate is closed, read on if you want to accept:Intelligent Design is an umbrella term, as it encompasses several methods, or attempts to demonstrate the intelligent design of life. Pro needs to present one or more of these arguments to fulfill their BoP to demonstrate the notion of intelligent design.Please message in the comments with the types of arguments you want to defend for intelligent design, personally I am looking for a biological intelligent design or a fine tuning debate, which argues for an intelligence guiding the design of life. This is to prevent this debate going off-track.The format is reversed, since the accepting party has the burden of proof, therefore:10,000 Words, 72 hours.Round 1: Rules, Opening ArgumentsRound 2: Arguments/RebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals (Closing from Pro)Round 4: Rebuttals & Closing from Con, Pro will type "No Round as agreed"The format is to ensure the same number of argument/rebuttal rounds.Good Luck!
Resolved: The United States should abolish the Electoral College

Hello, I am here to go against the change from the electoral college to a popular vote based election system. The electoral college is a system based on population... it works because, there are a few states in the US that would have the attention from candidates during a presidential race, these states would include.. California, Florida, Pennsylvania. This would happen because a candidate would only need to focus on these states to win the election.. Now the electoral college also always points to a clear winner while popular vote may require a recount due to it being very close. (Nation Wide) Minority voters might have the chance to make a change, since the candidates must focus everywhere for the electoral college to vote for them, this causes them to have to interact with minority voters that may be in places like California. Legitimacy the EC (electoral college) is also very good for making the election solid, what I mean by this is that when someone wins, they are not winning by a small amount, they are winning votes in counties, of which then add up to the state, of which then adds to the nation therefore is would be much harder to rig causing unfair candidates to have to reach to individual counties of which would take time, money, and energy of which could be spent campaigning everywhere... so everyone has a fair chance.
Resolved: The United States should abolish the Electoral College

Each debater will receive 4 rounds of argumentation. The opposing side can choose to begin in round 1 or in round 2. Acceptance of this debate is an acceptance of all rules presented below. No Trolling, semantic debates, etc. The Electoral College will be defined as the status quo. The Pro will argue for a change in the status quo, while the negative will argue for maintaining the status quo. Everything else is fair game. I would like a real debate on this, so please don't accept if you don't intend to actually debate the topic.
Resource Based Economy > Monetary Economy

It has been an interesting experience and gave us an opportunity to talk about the importance of grills. As arguments don't count in this round I will just give a brief summary of the debate. I have argued with an overly generalized (and perhaps flawed) view of US style capitalism, (and by extension, any monetary system) that seems more reasonable than a "resource based economy". Questions pertaining to incentive and other societal issues are never answered and therefore the resolution is not resolved. I have also given various reasons why the monetary system should be maintained and therefore have carried my own BOP.
Resource Based Economy > Monetary Economy

Money is the root of many of the world's problems: Poverty Therefore causing overpopulation in Africa (they need their kids to take care of them) Corruption Most wars Starvation Death from preventable diseases High crime rates (look at countries that have more economic equality) Pollution and use of resources that run out fast Economic instability A cure for cancer (found in Canada a few years ago) isn't on the market, mainly because the pharmaceutical corporations can't make a profit off of it. Now how do we fix or greatly reduce all of these problems? My solution is to remove the source, rahter than adapt to it."Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." -Albert EinsteinWe have the resources, but not the money, to create a new and sustainable civilization. One volcano alone has enough geothermal energy to power the world for thousands of years. We also have enough nuclear energy in our weapons to power the world for a long period of time. There's enough solar energy in the sun to power the world until it explodes, and you can't sell the sun. You can't sell the wind, either. You can sell windmills, but you can also sell the equipment to tap oil, which is inefficient, and is prone to spills hence pollution.Plants and animals can reproduce, only limiting the supply to overpopulation, so there's no reason for world hunger. Since there is no profit involved, we don't need unhealthy Grade D beef anymore. Money is an unnecessary barrier. Many jobs are being replaced by machines. A lot of people think this is a bad thing. In a Resource-Based Economy, this would be a good thing, because there would be no need for the boring and repetitive jobs. Everyone's dreams can come true, because there is no money to limit creativity, and there is no burden to "earn your living." The very concept of earning your right to live is just sickening, especially when they can technically get what they need with all of the resources we have.Access > Ownership. The things you don't use consistently (phones, beds, etc), you'll be able to use when you need it. People don't buy plane tickets. Look at all the empty space on some planes that could be otherwise occupied. First come first serve for a certain number of seats, and some for people who urgently need to get there. Anyone can get a free vacation, increasing their well-being. Anyone can contribute to society, and get other people's contributions in return. It'd be more like one big family. Do you pay your mom to make you dinner? Some soldiers "serve their country" and aren't in it for the benefits. There are also non-profit organizations. Why wouldn't people serve society?Intellectual property in the current system isn't going to last. People can download anything for free these days.Day in the life of a Resource-Based Economy (for further insight, if interested): http://blog.thezeitgeistmovement.com...
Resource Based Economy > Monetary Economy

Resolution and BOP:The burden on PRO is to prove that the world would be a better place with a resource based economy. The burden on CON is to prove that the world would not be better with a resource based economy, and we're perfectly fine with the system we have in place.Definitions:A Resource-Based Economy is the fair and sustainable distribution of natural resources, governed/influenced by science, but is not the totalitarian ruling by scientists. The main concern in this type of economy is the well being of all people and sustaining the environment.A Monetary Economy uses currency, which you can use to buy and sell goods and services. It is governed by politicians, banks, and large corporations. The main concern in Capitalism is competition; the freedom to obtain as much as you can. The main concern in Socialism is the equal distribution of money.Rules:1. This is not about the personal flaws of the debaters. It's about the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments themselves.2. Grammar doesn't count, as it is a personal flaw, and not a weakness of the argued point itself.3. The first round is for acceptance.4. Arguments in the 5th round will not be counted.5. After the debate is over, the debaters may not post comments.6. If you misinterpret something your opponent says, and they point it out, then don't keep rebutting to what you previously thought they meant.I advise that you know a little about Resource-Based Economics before you start debating, so that I don't waste the whole debate having to clear up misconceptions.
Gay marriage should be completly legal.

People obviously don't get it. Why in the **** is it any of other people's business? So what if it "Goes against your religion" Muslims aren't allowed to eat pork and you don't see them rioting trying to ban pork from America. Why do you think this happens? Because our entire country runs on negativity and complete and utter bull****. If its against what you believe does it mean you have to shove it down another completely innocent persons throat? Wait this is America I am talking to, of coarse we do. I wish I can move to some other place because I am embarrassed to be an American. Why? Because we are the most evil, and socaily backward people. So, why in the world would anyone start going off on gays because its their opionon? Gays didn't vote on YOUR marriage because they were gay, now what in the world gives you a right to do it to them? Gay is just another way of saying "I want to give the legal ties to my lover" and it should be regardless of weather they have a who who or ha ha.
Gay marriage should be completly legal.

“Ha ha. Really? Its not discrimination? What is it then?” …well I know it’s not discrimination. I don’t see that it really matters if it’s anything else. “Saying you cannot get married to the person you love because of your sexual orientation? That by definition is in-fact a discriminatory action.” Well you see, before we can say what is discriminatory and what isn’t, we must first look at the reason why the government regulates marriage. If a relationship does not fulfill the purpose of the government regulating marriage then there is no discrimination. In different terms: X recognizes Y because of B. X Does not recognize any letter that does not fulfill Y. Only B fulfills Y. X justly excludes every other letter because no other letter is capable of fulfilling Y. To say not allowing gay couples to marry is discrimination equates to saying that any relationship that is excluded from marriage is unjust discrimination, which is simply not true. “You say that a traditional marriage will help the country? Maybe so, but why won't the same be done for homosexuals? Its like a traditional marriage, just with two different genders, how will hurt the way we live, or even make a difference?” Like I said in my opening arguments, only heterosexual couples have an inherent connection to the family unit, which the government wants to promote. The family unit is good for society, and the government wants to promote a healthy family unit. The government does this by promoting marriage between heterosexual couples. The government has (or should) have no interest in the private lives of people, but heterosexual couples’ relationships are public, because they have a direct link to children. These children benefit society, therefore the government promotes the relationship that promotes society. The government would not control marriage at all if they did not recognize that marriage when defined in a certain way can benefit society. “if it doesn't hurt the economy or country in wales or England were is IS legal, why would it hurt or even affect the one here??” The legalization of gay marriage isn’t something that’s just going to make a society collapse in a couple years. In fact, it is something that you can really only see the affects over a long period of time. Through the logical, and sound arguments I have made you can conclude that the family unit will indeed be weakened through the allowance of gay marriage, but these affects will not be seen quickly. Gay marriage though, does indeed affect the family unit, which the government has an interest in promoting for the good of society. Back to you.
Gay marriage should be completly legal.

Ha ha. Really? Its not discrimination? What is it then? Saying you cannot get married to the person you love because of your sexual orientation? That by definition is in-fact a discriminatory action. You say that a traditional marriage will help the country? Maybe so, but why won't the same be done for homosexuals? Its like a traditional marriage, just with two different genders, how will hurt the way we live, or even make a difference? We are spending so much on debates about it, riots starting up, all kinds of things, everyone will be happy and there won't even BE riots after that, its completely all about pride. Also another thing that I would love to bring up, if it doesn't hurt the economy or country in wales or England were is IS legal, why would it hurt or even affect the one here??
Gay marriage should be completly legal.

Thank you for instigating this debate. First off, not allowing gay couples to be married is not discrimination by any means. In order to say what discrimination is and what isn’t we must first analyze how marriage is defined and why. Marriage is government regulated because the government recognizes that marriage has external benefits to it rather than marriage simply being about the relationship of a couple. The government also recognizes that these benefits marriage can bring when marriage is defined in a certain way can also be inherently good for the society. The government has absolutely no interest in the personal lives of people, the only interest they have in marriage is the direct benefits marriage brings. Allowing gay marriage degrades the government’s interest in marriage only to the personal relationships of two people, but as explained earlier the government could care less about what people do with their private lives. The government recognizes marriage between man and woman because despite the private relationship they have, their relationship still has a natural link to children to be loved by their mother and father. The government wants to promote these good family environments because these family units are good for the survival of a society. After all, it’s a given fact that only a society that produces children and raises them properly will survive and the government wants to promote this. The government promotes these relationships by dispensing benefits to married couples; this is not only a “thank you” for the couples who did get married, but it is also a way to get other heterosexual couples to get married. Now that we’ve analyzed the government’s role in marriage we can understand that there is no discrimination against those who cannot fulfill the role in marriage that the government calls for. In addition, homosexuals can still be married, just like heterosexuals, regardless of sexual orientation. To say homosexuals are discriminated against would be nearly the same as saying any couple that is currently excluded from marriage is being discriminated against. Now that we understand the government’s role in marriage we can understand that there is no unjust discrimination going against any couple who cannot be married. I will await any contentions you have to these arguments. You didn't exactly present any arguments, except that it's no one business so I can Go the f*ck away lol. However, I did explain that marriage is in the society's long term interest for the good of it. I await your response.
Communists should be considered criminals just as neo-nazis

Hello, Sorry, was extremely busy this weekend. I disagree that socialist values when applied in practice are always terrible, for instance the success of many European nations especially those in Scandinavia are built very much so on a socialist state (though without many of the extremes of Communism). Communism perhaps errs by going too far to see equality happening, though studies have repeatedly shown the harmful effects of income inequality in particular which presently plagues the more Capitalist nations of the world. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... Study: http://www.economics.cornell.edu... In regards to point 1. that you made, I did not in any way state that this was good for the nation of China. In fact, I stated the following. "(granting it's initial truly terrible period of history)" So there has been no mistake made here. To address your second point, economies are built on economic systems and while Communist China might be a bit more reformed than other Communist nations, it still directly influences and involves economy so to state that China's success is despite it's being a Communist nation or does not involve it at all is in error. To your third point, I suppose that is a matter of opinion, but I do agree they have some Capitalist tendencies which has lead to more income inequality in the nation itself. What I think is really going on here is a larger metanarratives of Democratic and Socialist tendencies, which we all look through our particular bias and condemn and demonize the opposing group. When rather we should seek to correct the extremes, and learn to realize that maybe not one system of economy or government is fit for every society. Kind Regards, TrueScotsman