BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Girls being conscious of their body image is the medias fault

What I meant in the title was not just a little self-consious, like I would expect everybody has, but to the point where girls are missing meals, upset or embarrassed of who they are. FRom a young age I think that children grown up smothered with models. Models are picked to promote a brand purely on appearance therefore that is almost telling the children that this is how the attractive people appear. The surroundings of the child are these models because wherever they go a product will be promoted using a person. Girls then feel that the only way to be desirable is to appear like this because of the general publics brain-washed opinion of the ideal person. This is the fault of the media for showing this image. I remember looking at the front cover of a magazine and on that front over was a celebrity in a bikini. She was what I and my family considered to be a normal weight. And yet the headline stated "Woah, when did *Celebrity's name" gain all this weight". As I continued to read the article they talked about her excess fat that she was carrying around. Anyone reading that magazine will see that this is what in the medias opinion considered fat and would then become self-conscious and as I'm sure you already know young minds are the easiest to influence, so they would become the most influenced by this photo. If we were to use a healthy BMI model in the media children would aspire to be like that and would therefore know that their weight is the healthy weight. Those at the two ends of the scale can then get themselves to the 'healthy' body, as it is dangerous for somebody to be either under or overweight. The media could also promote the idea of exercise rather than dieting. I also would like to present myself as an example, I am a teenage girl who spent the whole of my childhood believing, because of all the models I saw that I was fat. I now look back at pictures of myself an I can see that I was, in fact, as the doctors said underweight. I listen to other teenage girls every day moan about their body weight and how they wish to be the weight of a supermodel or size 4. Who influenced them and me? The Media. And because of that I look back at my younger childhood and I feel upset. Because in the time when I needn't worry about my weight, because it was no issue, in the time when I should have been painting and drawing and eating lollipops. I was hungry and upset. As for my source last week I attended a talk given by a retired diet specialist, I made notes on the talk she gave as I needed them for an exam taken. I can provide you with their name if you desire to look them up?
Girls being conscious of their body image is the medias fault

To start my argument I would like to say that I think all girls should be conscious about their body. This works either way, self consciousness does not mean being unheatlhy. A girl can be conscious about her body and still be healthy, while not being over the top or under it. I do imagine you meant that girl are being over conscient about their body because of the media, which, in turn can cause different diseases. I will take this as your debate question. I would also love a source for the 87.5% unhappy girls you stated. I mostly disagree on the fact that it is the Medias fault that the girls are being over concerned about their bodies. I do not think the media is to blame since they are just the passing on the ads that the clothing industry gives them, they are in no way to blame for this, they just pass the message. Of course you could say they are guilty for doing so, but this would be an incredible shortcut, they have to keep their prices democratic, not giving out those ads could result in a raise in price of the papers/magazines. Another thing to consider is that the model used, underweight or not, is only there to show the clothing. If the model were to be overweight, you would have another decrease in self-esteem. Consequently, if you have a majority of 'normal' (regular BMI) models, the 2 far ends of the BMI scale would not be happy about their image in society. If a girl has a problem with her self-esteem, the problem should not be sought at the media firms, but at the surroundings of the girl. In my experience everyone has his little thing on his body that he is ashamed of and likes to emphasize.
Girls being conscious of their body image is the medias fault

If the media were not portraying the ideal, beautiful body and splashing it in our faces girls would not worry so much. Think if the media stopped splashing this 'ideal body' in front of our faces then there would be no problem with how we look. If people were not encouraged to judge people on appearances then there would be no need to be image conscious. Just think 87.%% of Uk teenage girls are not happy about their bodies. Can you not think why? The Media.
There should be no zoos

Zoos even hurt the animal’s reproduction. Being sold breaks bonds of the animals. If you are in a zoo there is a giant chance that they will be very little animals that are of the same kind. And you might not like the people they are sometimes forced to mate with. There are much more choices to mate with in their actual home, the wild. Elephants breed poorly in or not at all in zoos. In 50 years there will be no animals in the zoo. And some species need food to breed. If you breed with your own family member than your kid will have problems and that happened in the copphengan zoo, what happened was that they had an Giraffe and killed it and fed it to a lion in front of kids and their excuse was that they didn’t want the Giraffes to mate with each other because they are part of the same family and if they did mate they would have a child with problems. That show there that this can be an excuse. Zoos hurt the animals reproduction.
There should be no zoos

Grading- My Challenger has giving me her opinion and one little fact. Please write more. Side note- I have already done this so I will post this fast. Argument- Space is not enough for most animals in fact the average space is 15 foot by 15. And living in there 24/7. How would you like that? Image living in your bedroom with a cage or glass that is all dirty and most of the times concrete all around you. In the wild they are free to roam. In this jail they spend most of their time trying to escape and suffer from stress, boredom, and confinement. They also get less exercise and that leads to less life span. Some zoos are so horrible there are incidents of zoo animals of the same species EATING EACH OTHER. Here are some zoos to give you an example. San Antonio Zoo- “For 2 years the unfortunate animal named Lucky was kept in a solitary confinement too small for her. And the zoo decided add another elephant to the tiny space to create a herd.” Oradea Zoo- 4 lions were in a 15 foot by 12 foot cage made mostly out of concrete. Zoo director David Hancoks said, “There is a common misconception that zoos not only saving animals but also providing a safer wild for them. But in reality most zoos don’t try to make their business does that at all. It is just for the money.” Space is not enough for most animals.
There should be no zoos

Argument- Most zoos are not prepared to have animals because they suffer from financially and being inexperienced. If they have little money then the animals will be in a small cage and suffer from the not enough space in the paragraph above. If they do not have enough money they will not be able to give healthy food to the animals. Inexperienced will affect their food because they will not know what food to buy. And if they get bad food that can affect their digestive system. If there are surpluses of animals in one cage they slaughter them. Giza zoo- Had 2 zebras die and it painted donkeys to look like a zebra because limited funds. Zoo keepers argument their salaries by charging random people to enter the cages with the animals. 2 people entered a lion cage and sadly did not make it out of there. Most zoos suffer financially or being inexperienced.____________________________________________________________________Websites used- My experince about zoos. No websites are used so there will not be any taking away points for the websites used. Put it as a tie. It is the rules.
There should be no zoos

I think as we (humans) grow and learn, we are seeing/realizing that animals, although not quite as intelligent as we are, still feel the base emotions that we do...anger, happiness (contentment), sadness, love (especially seen between mother and child). They "feel" and they also serve a purpose here on earth. That being said, it is obvious that they need to be protected. Sadly, this doesn't seem to happen in the animal's natural habitat. Dozens of species have been brought close to extinction. The main effort of zoos today is to try and replace the depleted numbers through specific breeding programs and to educate people about the animals and their worlds. Most zoos do wonders for the animals they keep but I do think it's sad that the animals have to be "contained" in smaller enclosures. They pay the price for humans' greed and ignorance
God is worse than Hitler

I thank JP for posting his rebuttal My opponent is saying that if you create something, then you have every right to do anything you want to it, including killing it, and yet you remain morally just and good. I do not understand this. Why does God tell humans not to kill their children? The children were made by the parents and thus we reach a contradiction. When I posted the resolution I said "Christian God as seen through the bible. " This meant his actions, not the definition. I could write a book saying "The Invisible Pink Unicorn is undeniably good and just no matter what it does. Then I could have this Invisible Pink Unicorn destroy a town, practice infanticide, abort, water board, and cut legs off people who don't believe in him. Does that make the Invisible Pink Unicorn good? No. >>> Humans cannot argue Gods actions <<< Isn't that what you're doing right now? Why did God make man evil and wicked in the first place? I thought he was the unquestionable genius behind everything. Why did he make a mistake? Then God destroys the people because he knew "They wouldn't turn to him. " This is egotistical and just proves my point. He is morally wrong. He is saying that we can kill anything that does not believe in us or our beliefs. So does that mean I can kill my kids, or my neighbor, if they don't believe I built a sand castle? Hitler saw jews as evil and that they had no purpose. He showed Germany that they were a drain on society. In fact, I think the whole holocaust and WW2 were more the German people's fault than Hitler's. There have been many crazy mad men in history but they don't get into leadership positions. It's the people's faults. >>> and if they can't achieve their purpose then there is no reason for them to be around. <<< What was their purpose? To make God feel good? It seems very wrong of God to be so concerned with our thoughts of him. Is he so fragile in his personality he needs constant praise and adoration? God's actions concerning the Israelites and pharaoh are an even better display of God's skewed system of morality. God is being racist here. He chose one race over another. Later in the bible he says he loves all men equally. This is another contradiction and therefore a lie on God's account. And in being racist he gets violent. He breaks his own commandments and kills. This is a "do as I say not as I do" situation. Then God sends his only son to die for us. Why his son? God has someone else do it. He always does. He has Jesus do all the hard work instead of him. God is a selfish, hypocritical, violent, corrupted being and does things far worse than what Hitler did. Moreover he created Hitler, knowing full-well what his character was and what he was capable of doing.
The Bible Does Not Condemn Drinking Wine

===================== BURDEN OF PROOF - REBUTTAL ===================== <"This debate is about a whether or not the Bible condemns drinking wine. If it condemns it, it must be universal."> +As per my definition of condemn (to adjudge unfit for use or consumption), condemnation does not have to be universal. All I have to do to win this debate is to provide one passage where the Bible condemns drinking wine, which I have already done. +++If any one of my passages stand at the end of the debate, I win. ================== STRAW MEN - REBUTTALS ================== ***** <"Each of these text condemn drunkeness, not drinking wine. My proposition is not the Bible condemns drunkeness, I agree with that, it does. While it condemns drunkeness it does not condemns drinking wine without getting drunk."> +My opponent did not rebut my passages. He simply put forth his own passages and rebutted them himself. ***** ***** <"If wine, not drunkenness, was condemned then Jesus would have never turned water into wine -John 2 Pauld would not have told Timothy to drink it for his stomach -1Timothy 5:23 Jesus would not have drank it - Matthew 11:18-19 The fact that Jesus drank it ends this debate. If it was a sin to drink it, then Jesus, who was God manifest in the flesh, could not have drank it. If Jesus drank it, then the bible does not condemn it."> +This debate is not "The Bible Does Not Deem Drinking Wine A Sin" it is "The Bible Does Not Condemn Drinking Wine". ***** +++My opponent has put forth no arguments other than straw men so far. ========= CONCLUSION ========= +My opponent has rebutted any of my passages other than the ones from Isiaiah. +All I had to do in this debate is prove that the Bible condemns (to adjudge unfit for use or consumption) drinking wine. The Bible has adjudged unfit for use the consumption of Wine on numerous occasions. The following contentions stand::: Leviticus 10:9 You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. Numbers 6:3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. Deuteronomy 29:6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the Lord your God. Judges 13:4 Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean, Judges 13:7 But he said to me, ‘You will conceive and give birth to a son. Now then, drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God from birth until the day of his death.' Judges 13:14 She must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, nor drink any wine or other fermented drink nor eat anything unclean. She must do everything I have commanded her. Proverbs 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel— not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer,
The Bible Does Not Condemn Drinking Wine

With that being said it is very clear what has done to try and prove his position. He has taken found a few verse about wine that sound negative and posted them; in doing this he has ignored the context of all of these passage. This debate is about a whether or not the Bible condemns drinking wine. If it condemns it, it must be universal. A quick example of his misunderstanding of this issue is as follows. Isaiah 5:11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. Isaiah 5:22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, Isaiah 24:9 No longer do they drink wine with a song; the beer is bitter to its drinkers. Isaiah 28:7 And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. Each of these text condemn drunkeness, not drinking wine. My proposition is not the Bible condemns drunkeness, I agree with that, it does. While it condemns drunkeness it does not condemns drinking wine without getting drunk. Most of his other text refer to the law of the Nazarite and their pledge to not drink wine. That pledge also included grape juice. If his vow universally condemns all wine for everybody then it also condemns grape juice as well. The point is that it was a particular vow for a paticular person. If wine, not drunkenness, was condemned then Jesus would have never turned water into wine -John 2 Pauld would not have told Timothy to drink it for his stomach -1Timothy 5:23 Jesus would not have drank it - Matthew 11:18-19 The fact that Jesus drank it ends this debate. If it was a sin to drink it, then Jesus, who was God manifest in the flesh, could not have drank it. If Jesus drank it, then the bible does not condemn it. What we would like for our opponent to do is to give us a verse that condmens drinking wine, not drunkeness. If he does this then he will prove his point and disprove mine. I look forward to his attempt to do the impossible.
The Bible Does Not Condemn Drinking Wine

========= DEFINITIONS ========= Bible - the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament . http://www.merriam-webster.com... condemn - to adjudge unfit for use or consumption . http://www.merriam-webster.com... *I shall be using the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible for this debate. ========== CONTENTIONS ========== Leviticus 10:9 You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. Numbers 6:3 he must abstain from wine and other fermented drink and must not drink vinegar made from wine or from other fermented drink. He must not drink grape juice or eat grapes or raisins. Deuteronomy 29:6 You ate no bread and drank no wine or other fermented drink. I did this so that you might know that I am the Lord your God. Judges 13:4 Now see to it that you drink no wine or other fermented drink and that you do not eat anything unclean, Judges 13:7 But he said to me, ‘You will conceive and give birth to a son. Now then, drink no wine or other fermented drink and do not eat anything unclean, because the boy will be a Nazirite of God from birth until the day of his death. ' Judges 13:14 She must not eat anything that comes from the grapevine, nor drink any wine or other fermented drink nor eat anything unclean. She must do everything I have commanded her. Leviticus 10:9 You and your sons are not to drink wine or other fermented drink whenever you go into the Tent of Meeting, or you will die. This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. Proverbs 31:4 It is not for kings, O Lemuel— not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, Isaiah 5:11 Woe to those who rise early in the morning to run after their drinks, who stay up late at night till they are inflamed with wine. Isaiah 5:22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine and champions at mixing drinks, Isaiah 24:9 No longer do they drink wine with a song; the beer is bitter to its drinkers. Isaiah 28:7 And these also stagger from wine and reel from beer: Priests and prophets stagger from beer and are befuddled with wine; they reel from beer, they stagger when seeing visions, they stumble when rendering decisions. Isaiah 29:9 Be stunned and amazed, blind yourselves and be sightless; be drunk, but not from wine, stagger, but not from beer.
Cohabitation: Living together before marriage will most likely result in divorce.

So pretty much with all the case studies that have been done, I've concluded that there is in-substantiation to the claim. Couples or folks in relationships long live their unions or break their unions on the basis of the condition and quality there of. In another debate of a similar topic this is discussed . How compatible and how best fit are the two persons for marriage is the be all, end all in any event . Whether you live together or not doesn't change anything . It's what that person is to you that makes all the difference . From the personality to the attitude to the mindset and character base. If that person is not a right fit for you , they are not a fit in any circumstance whatsoever. Now the more you get to know the person and perhaps getting acquainted with their living habits can actually give one an adequate determination on compatibility. Like the saying goes , you really don't know a person like the one that you live with.
Cohabitation: Living together before marriage will most likely result in divorce.

So to get this correctly, you believe it is a constructive move for couples that are subsequently to marry to cohabitant prior. That if they decide to make living arrangements and share the same roof , that won't increase the likelihood of divorce or dissolution later down the road to matrimony. There have been studies and surveys done to make a claim that cohabitation is more detrimental to a couple's livelihood than anything else. But you side on the differ, is that your stance ?
Cohabitation: Living together before marriage will most likely result in divorce.

I feel that living together before getting married is a great idea! The bride and groom, bride and bride and/or groom and groom living together before marriage means that they can get to know each other and accept each other for who they are. Besides aren't they gong to live together anyways? They need to get used to living together before marriage to make sure they can be comfortable with each other.
Cohabitation: Living together before marriage will most likely result in divorce.

Anyone up for this debate , this is a cordial invitation to share perspectives on the matter of cohabitation. Definition of cohabitation according to google search : Cohabitation refers to situations in which two people live together, and are involved in an emotional and/or sexually intimate relationship. The term is commonly used regarding unmarried couples who choose to live together without officially getting married. For those that will bring statistics, here is a disclaimer about statistics. They don't and never will give you the whole story . Bias tends to get interlaced with the numbers and sometimes it depends on the areas that are being surveyed. But basically anyone that is representing the supposed fact that cohabitation does more harm than good to any one couple is strongly urged to step forward nowwwwww or forever hold your peace. "You may say I do and until death do you part". But seriously I am looking to learn and get understanding. Any takers , please come forth to the altar!
Intelligent Design

Okay Carrie... I read this and I have to say it was interesting but that I know nothing of that subject, like we talked about so I'm just going to try to bring up some new points to debate about? :D Okay so, first of all, I am not denying that there is a "God" and that "He" didn't have any "hand" in creating the universe, but I am saying that Adam and Eve didn't exist and weren't the first people. Adam and Eve, according to the bible, were created roughly 6000 years ago, which would mean that the world was created 6000 years ago, which is scientifically NOT true. Dinosaurs, fossils, even human body parts show that humans evolve. Evolution of species DOES happen; we have the appendix, why? For what? At one point in time, the appendix had a specific function. Also, if Adam and Eve WERE the first humans, does that mean that they bore every race? Africans? Asians? Caucasians? Latinos? Also scientifically impossible. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, were they "made" with basic knowledge? Like how to speak? And if so, what language did they speak? Adam and Eve is meant to be a story of symbolism, an allegory. It is not a historical story.