BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
hunting is bad

Hunting promotes human killing No it doesn't. Moreover, hunting was done for survival in the old days. Humans are superior to animals as we are more intelligent, are more in numbers and have made ourselves formidable. Although an eccentric notion, hunting could be done to train the army and the police so that they don't get too disconcerted by the blood. Animal rights I don't believe animals have the right to live independently without human interference. Also, animals hurt each other, yet it is not barbaric. A lion hunts a deer, we shot the lion. Haven't we done a good favor to the deer? Furthermore, I quote " animals have rights just as much as we do as inhabitants of this shared world" then shouldn't we stop eating plants as well? Just cause they live, doesn't mean they should live. If we stopped the breeding of chickens and cattle since the farmers start thinking animals should get rights, then not only would they eat up all the grass, they will also be easy prey for the carnivorous animals and be dead in no time. Usefulness of hunting I think hunting should be done as hunting will provide us food, leather/ other types of skin, and much more. Hunting should be done as it is profitable and is a gold mine not fully exploited. Pro argues it hurts animals, I argue that since they have to get hurt and die anyway, better they die for us. " For example if you successfully rob a bank." Hunting is illegal now in many places, actually. Cybertronians > humans > animals > plants
hunting is bad

"I don't get why hunting is bad when I can get profit and food from it." You can get profit from a lot of things that are criminal. For example if you successfully rob a bank. Also if what you're saying is that hunting is good because you can get food from it, then why don't we kill humans by that logic? "Carnivores would kill them anyway." Not necessarily true since you're assuming that no animals die of natural causes which we know is not true. "I think regulated hunting would ensure survival of the sport as well as help the forest" You're arguing that hunting should be banned by saying that it would help the sport survive, so you assume that the sport is good, but you still have yet to provide why it is. So you're essentially begging the question. Also you didn't provide how it would help the forest. My arguments- Hunting should be banned because it promotes the type of attitude to kill things for your own entertainment. With this attitude spreading people will get the idea to do the same to other humans. Also, animals have rights just as much as we do as habitants of this shared world. Unless my opponent can provide adequate reasoning for why humans are superior to other animals. Also it is cruel to hurt animals in the name of sport. It's a barbaric sport to end the lives of animals, sometimes in a painful way, for fun. This is very sadistic to animals.
This house would make English the official language of the United States.

My first argument is that it promotes unity in America. In the same way that the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem bring this nation together, English is something we share and promote. Adopting the English language has been an integral part of becoming an "American." The English language serves as a national glue that not only binds, but also unites immigrants with native-born Americans. Although our love of freedom and democratic ideals help to unite and give Americans a sense of purpose, it is ultimately English which allows us to communicate with each other, discuss our views, and encourage trust, while reducing racial hostility and bigotry. Since we are a nation of immigrants, we do not have the common bonds other countries share: race, religion, culture, and ethnicity. As Karin Davenport, a spokesperson for U.S. English, says "It"s not about language restrictions. It"s about making English the bond that ties us together in our diversity." By citizens learning English, we have been able to forge a unified nation from the diverse immigrants who harbor different beliefs and interests.
This house would make English the official language of the United States.

Unity with in a country is important however it is not our language or songs or pledges of alligencies that should unit us it should be our detication to the ideas and practice of freedom and equality. It are these traits that make a true American. Having a similar language does make communication easier. However it should not be mandatory. In other countries citizens can and do know more than one language and there is no reason America can not do the same thing.
The Xbox One has Lost the Console War.

Rules Update - In the final round, I can type as many sentences as I want, but the remaining rules still apply. Con, as I predicted, forfeited the round and failed to challenge me in the debate once again. He has forfeited every round except the first one. Con's incompetence and absence throughout the entire debate will ensure my victory. We are in the final round and Con still hasn't provided a thesis. He can't restate a thesis because he hasn't stated one in the first place. You can't restate something that hasn't been stated before. That's just common sense. He can't provide any arguments nor rebuttals because you can't do that according to my rules. So, even though Con will decide to participate at the final round, he will still lose because he can't state his arguments. As my concluding statements, I would to clarify again that the Xbox One is a good console in general; however, it is still inferior to the PlayStation 4 whether its superiority is significant or not. I say to Con, goodbye sir. Thank you for at least being my opponent.
The Xbox One has Lost the Console War.

Con has relinquished yet again. The rules for rebuttals still remain discarded because my arguments are still left unchallenged and Con hasn't stated any arguments. It seems I already win because Con can't restate his thesis because he hasn't stated one and can't post any arguments. *Sigh* Another quitter. Guys, if you're going to be in this DDO website and going to debate with people, at least have the inclination of participating in the debate.
The Xbox One has Lost the Console War.

If my opponent forfeits, the rules for rebuttals and arguments for me are discarded because I have nothing to rebut over. Con has forfeited Round 2, leaving my arguments unchallenged. My chances of being victor of this debate has increased. If Con forfeits Round 3, he will automatically lose because Round 4 is the Round of Rebuttals. In Round 4, he will not be able to state any arguments. Plus, in Round 5, he can't state his thesis because he hasn't stated one, nor can he state it in later rounds. I have the upper hand in this debate.
The Xbox One has Lost the Console War.

Do not state your thesis or any argument in this round. You do not have to exactly say "I accept. " You are free to word your greeting to your desired interpretation. Round 2: Thesis Statement and Inital Arguments - In this round, you are required to formulate a 1 sentence thesis statement. Following this thesis, you are required to come up with at least 3 arguments supporting your thesis. Please list these arguments numerically and separate your thesis from your arguments. You are also required to post at least one source for each argument you state. Round 3: Additional Arguments and/or Rebuttals - If you have more arguments that you forgot to state in Round 2 and want to state in Round 3, you are free to do so. But, the same rules for your arguments from Round 2 still apply. You are required to rebut your opponent's arguments in this round. The only rule for the rebuttals is that you must type a paragraph for each rebuttal. Also, separate your rebuttal statments from your additional arguments. Round 4: Rebuttals - This is the same from Round 3 and the same rules still apply. It's basically rebuting our rebuttals. (Just a little note for myself. ) Round 5: Concluding Statments and Salutations - You are required to type only a paragraph in this round (3-5 sentences). In these 3-5 sentences, you must restate your thesis (in a different way) and say your good byes. Additional Debate Rules (These rules must be followed at all times. Failure to obey these rules will result in an automatic 7-point forfeit. Of course, these rules will apply to me as well. Here are the rules:) Rule #1: No insulting Rule #2: I am allowed to change, add, or completely remove any of set rules I desire. Rule #3: If you have any concerns or questions about the debate rules, ask them in the comments and we'll work it out there.
The free market is the best solution for racism and discrimination.

Firstly, I would like to clarify some context issues my opponent is misunderstanding. I am talking about discrimination in the context of the market; regarding jobs, careers and businesses. I am not talking about a society in whole, just an aspect of the society, in this case, the market. When my opponent made the statement that "racism and discrimination are spread out beyond the world of business" and "changing one small portion of society will do absolutely nothing. .. ", those opinions are irrelevant and out of context because I am regarding solely to the marketplace. Outside interference is not the point. However, that being said, my opponent made an interesting observation. It is true that a truly free market will not change peoples opinions on the inside. An anti-Semite will keep his hated for the Jews and that will usually bring him no trouble as long as he keeps his opinions within the law. However, if that anti-Semite wished to operate a successful BUSINESS, his prejudice will severely handicap his operations. Of which i will elaborate. To take your zoo-inspired example a little further, and that we assume that the employers "species-ism" still applies toward the rhino, let us take this example. Lets say that the employer is in the light fixture industry, of which he runs moderately successful enterprise. The employer has a job opening that pays $25,000 in salary. There are two applicants - one rhino and one panda. The employers job manager estimates that while the panda will bring in $28,000 in profits, the rhino will bring in $31,000 in profits, based on their experiences and individual merits. Now, if the employer wanted to run his business optimally, he would naturally pick the rhino - of which the rhino would earn $6000 in profits for the employer. However, if he decided to act on his prejudice and chose the panda as his employee, the panda would only earn $3000, thereby costing the employer $3000 in profits. As you can see, it is a costly business to be discriminatory in a free market economy, where racism and sexism are bad business decisions. They can keep their personal objections toward someone to themselves all they want, but in order to maximize profits they would have no choice but to hire the best employee available, even if they are a rhino. Lastly, I would like to mention that I find it quite disturbing that my opponent has a seemingly laissez-fair attitude toward intolerance, and gives no real solution on trying to combat it. Remember: genocide ends where indifference begins. My argument stands: the free market is the best way to deal with racism and discrimination.
The free market is the best solution for racism and discrimination.

My opponent's proposal for ending discrimination and racism is to implement a completely free market. I think that this proposal is irrelevant and naive. The proposal is irrelevant because one thing has nothing to do with the other. Racism and discrimination are spread out far beyond the world of business, and are deeply ingrained in the very fiber of society. Changing one small portion of society will do absolutely nothing, because racism and discrimination will seep in. The proposal is naive because the world simply does not operate the way my opponent believes it does. In a truly free market, employers are still human. The fact that it is a free market does not mean that an employer's bias and racism is automatically eliminated in favor of money. Furthermore, if a panda and a rhino both show up for the same position, and are just as qualified, the employer still has the choice to act on his rhino prejudice and employ the panda out of hatred. My opponent's proposal to solve racism and discrimination with a free market is the same in efficacy as proposing to solve world hunger by reducing the tax on pickles. Will it help? Yes. But not in any marked way. There is no solution for racism and discrimination, in any way, shape or form. People will always have prejudice and people will always discriminate. We have an intrinsic need to alienate others while embracing some. Differences in appearance are a natural indicator, and people will always use this as a form of discrimination, unless we do the following: 1. Upload everyone into a virtual world 2. Make the appearance of each person exactly the same. This, unlike my opponent's proposal, is the best solution for looks-based racism and discrimination.
Evolution is true.

"Beneficial mutations are still beneficial even though they may cause something wrong elsewhere, it depends on the benefit compared to the problem" However, benefits are often less than problems in "beneficial" mutations. For example, one of these problems include a mutation in the gene CCR5 resulting in HIV resistance, but also causing a higher risk of Hepatitis B and West Nile Virus. [1] Hepatitis B and West Nile are WAY more common than HIV. "evolution doesn't have to include everything evolving from the first life form. Even if this is not true and all life came to earth in an other way, for example god put them here, evolution can still be true" I thought that you were talking about the theory of evolution, and not evolution in general. My bad. "Plate tectonics aren't the only way they can get separated, it can also happen simply because two groups that already don't live together go different directions." But why? So the animals just separate themselves for no reason as if they know that it would be more beneficial? I never have heard of rabbits that have PhD's in biology. "If you think evolution is not true, how do you think life came here, and what evidence do you have for that?" Creationism. Everything is just so perfect! [1] http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Evolution is true.

This is also my first debate so that makes it fair (: Beneficial mutations may not be common, but they don't have to be because evolution takes a very long time. And con says that all beneficial mutations also cause problem, but if it is a great benefit, and a smell problem, it is still beneficial. Also, mutations aren't the only way for a species to change: If there are two giraffes with slightly longer necks have children, some of those children will have even longer necks, without there having to be any mutations. This can happen, humans even make it happen themselves when we breed animals. For example dogs; Most if not every dog race, has been bred by humans. If someone wanted a strong but friendly dog, they would get a very strong dog and a very loyal and kind dog, and let them mate. (I know this exact example maybe didn't happen, but similar thing did, and still do). This process can also happen in nature. Another way of changing is; when you have rabbits that can be born with either grey or whit fur, and this color is their camouflage because they live on rocks with snow, but then the climate changes and it gets colder, all the rock gets covered in snow and the grey rabbits get eaten by predators. Only the white ones survive. Then to the separation issue: Plate tectonics aren't the only way they can get separated, it can also happen simply because two groups that already don't live together go different directions. Or when there is a species that spreads across a very big area, and because of climate change, some parts of that area get warmer/colder or get more/less/different flora or different predators, and some parts stay the same or change differently. The earth is around 4.5 billion years old, this has been proven by geologists, based on radiometric dating. But as con said, this is not what this debate is about. But con also says "So to prove that evolution is true, then the underlying assumption that the earth is old also has to be proven true. " this is not correct, evolution doesn't have to include everything evolving from the first life form. Even if this is not true and all life came to earth in an other way, for example god put them here, evolution can still be true, if you believe God put all life on earth 6000 years ago ( or whatever you think happened), evolution can still happen, it would have happened in the thousands of years since life came here, it would be happening now and would continue happening in the future. Finally I have a question for you Con. If you think evolution is not true, how do you think life came here, and what evidence do you have for that? I know this is not what the debate is about, but for evolution not to be true, there has to be some other way life came on earth.
Evolution is true.

Hello! this is the first debate I accepted, so I might not be really good at this, but here goes! My opponent has explained that evolution is based on mutations and how it works. However, he has never told us how it proves evolution. I'll refute each claim one by one. "1. DNA exists and you get yours from your parents." Not proof of evolution, but DNA sure is important in evolution if it were true. "2. Mutations occur." Yes, but beneficial mutations are not that common. There are observed beneficial mutations, [1] but all of them are small and found in E.coli and similar micro organisms. [1] I have found no sources saying that there are observed beneficial mutations that are big and in more complex organisms. In fact, there are no truly beneficial mutations. A lot of these so called beneficial mutations often cause another problem somewhere else, such as bacteria developing antibiotic reliance instead of antibiotic resistance. [2] "3. When an individual has a mutation that is beneficial for surviving in its current environment ( like giraffes having slightly longer necks so they can always reach for leaves that haven't been eaten by others.) the individual has a bigger chance to survive." See point 2. "4. If you have a bigger chance to survive, you are more likely to have children." As stated in point 2, they do not necessarily give you a bigger chance of surviving. They become reliant of their environment instead of adapting to it. "5. Some of those children will inherit the beneficial mutation. 6. They will also have a bigger chance to survive and have children. 7. This will cause the population of individuals with the benefit ( longer neck ) to grow. 8. If this keeps happening with a lot of different kinds of mutations the species will eventually be totally different from the initial species, maybe so different they aren't able to have children with each other, what makes them a different species." See above. Plus, all my opponent has said was HOW evolution works. It only proves evolution if beneficial mutations exist. "If to [sic]groups of the same species get separated and live in a different environment they will not have the same mutations and different kinds of mutations will be naturally selected." But how did they get separated? Plate tectonics does work and continents are moving, but for plate tectonics to separate landmasses takes millions of years, which requires an old earth, and abiogenesis to amoeba-to-man evolution also requires an old earth. So to prove that evolution is true, then the underlying assumption that the earth is old also has to be proven true. However, the age of the earth is still very controversial, and it is not the topic of the debate, so I am not going to elaborate on it. Still, there has to be a reason for them to get separated! Sources: [1]http://www.gate.net... [2]http://www.answersingenesis.org...
Evolution is true.

There is a lot of evidence for evolution: 1. DNA exists and you get yours from your parents. 2. Mutations occur. 3. When an individual has a mutation that is beneficial for surviving in its current environment ( like giraffes having slightly longer necks so they can always reach for leaves that haven't been eaten by others.) the individual has a bigger chance to survive. 4. If you have a bigger chance to survive, you are more likely to have children. 5. Some of those children will inherit the beneficial mutation. 6. They will also have a bigger chance to survive and have children. 7. This will cause the population of individuals with the benefit ( longer neck ) to grow. 8. If this keeps happening with a lot of different kinds of mutations the species will eventually be totally different from the initial species, maybe so different they aren't able to have children with each other, what makes them a different species. So basically: If you believe in DNA, DNA-transfer and mutation, there is no other way than evolution being true. And to prove that two species can have a common ancestor: If to groups of the same species get separated and live in a different environment they will not have the same mutations and different kinds of mutations will be naturally "selected".
Evolution is true.

Mutations are random, so if non-beneficial mutations exist, beneficial mutations exist too. "But why? So the animals just separate themselves for no reason as if they know that it would be more beneficial? I never have heard of rabbits that have PhD's in biology. " They didn't do it on purpose, lots of animals life in groups, small or huge, but there are always multiple groups, no group ever includes every single individual in the species. Those groups live separate from each other, so they don't even know where the other groups are. And when they are spread across a very big area, every group could be close to another group but the groups on the edge of the area will be far away from the groups on the other side of the area. Besides, it would be equally weird when the groups would just always stay close to each other, that just costs effort and it is not always beneficial. "Creationism. Everything is just so perfect! " First, that is not evidence, that is just your reason for believing in it. Besides, not everything is perfect, life is very dangerous, there are many diseases you can die from, and many animals have hundreds of children while only a few survive. If everything was perfect, there would be no predators, only herbivores. And there are flaws in human anatomy which indicates the body was not intelligently designed: -Your food and your air goes through the same hole, it would be smarter to make two holes, that way we couldn't choke on our food. -Your appendix, why would God have made it if it had no use? - The same goes for your wisdom teeth. If God is perfect and he created us, why would we have these flaws? You might say these flaws also disprove evolution, but that is not true, because evolution isn't making us perfect, it just makes us adapt to our environment, the first flaw was just not harmful enough to make much difference, and the appendix and the wisdom teeth are just leftover from our ancestors who may have needed them so they are even evidence for evolution. And again, don't make any new arguments in your next turn, because I couldn't refute them anymore and that would not be fair because then you could just make random claims without evidence. And voters, please make sure you vote based only on the arguments given in this debate, because in this subject it is almost impossible to change someones mind.
I have a Phd in Trollology

Pro has the BoP to show us that he infact has a Phd in Trollology. In order to uphold his Bop, he must take a selfie of himself holding his Trollology certificate in his left hand, while giving a thumbs up with his right. His certificate must be valid. He can't make it himself. Also, in his picture, he must wear his cap and gown in which he graduated in. Fail to uphold his Bop ends up as a automatic loss for Pro.