BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God should be brought into schools more.

//"But you have to see that by taking our religion out. Is favoring the other. "// Taking religion out of school does exactly that, it takes religion our of school so that there is no favoring of any specific religion. My opponent has not shown a single religion which is favored by keeping religion out of school and will not find one. //"Allowing us not to pray, is taking our religion OUT of schools. .. .so that makes room for other beliefs. "// That is exactly what it does and I will not argue about that. And it does not make room for other beliefs as if it's a religion, it is kept out of school. I challenge my opponent to find one religion which is favored by this. //"Public schools don't teach creation, but evolution is. "// Public schools do not teach creationism because there is no Bible class in a secular public school. Creationism is not actually science and therefore has no place in a science class. Evolution is a non-religious scientific theory. People of all religions and non-religion accept and deny evolution's validity. If my opponent can show why evolution is inherently connected to any religion then he would be right that it should not be taught in schools. However he will not be able to do this as the theory of evolution was created, tested, and verified independent of any religion. My opponent has yet to show why favoring the Christian god in schools would not be a violation of the Constitution.
God should be brought into schools more.

As this is a policy debate I am assuming that my opponent is not talking about private schools where God may be incorporated into the curriculum or school activities, and my opponent means that God should be brought into public schools. My opponent also seems to be specifically advocating schools to incorporate the Christian God specifically into their schools. Now I will start out this debate and show why public schools ought to stay completely secular with no supporting or showing favor to religious ideas(namely the Christian God). I will first cite the first amendment as it pertains to religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" This means that the government legally cannot favor any type of religion or non-religion in a publicly funded school. I believe this is all that is needed to effectively show why bringing God into schools is a gross violation of the Constitution.
God should be brought into schools more.

Since we are talking about God, we are saying God as a person, therefore g on God should be capitalized. There are gods, but we are using God as the creator of Earth. God as in the king of all gods. Also God comes with Christianity. Therefore letting us pray in school and have certain rights. Same basic rules, no vulgar language etc etc. but most importantly no attacking my beliefs. You can say he isn't real, just nothing like calling me an idiot for believing it or trying to prove me wrong that he exists. Definition for Christian: a person that confesses with their mouth and believes in their heart that God is coming back for all of us, and believes in his existence.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sounds inviting, and one could only hope such a list will one day make a difference. The point I (Con) is stressing is knowing the prerequisite for UDHR, where it is the prerequisite that "must be taken more seriously" for UDHR to stand a chance. The discussion I presented in the previous Rounds, is the debate the UN should be having to move UDHR forward.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously.

Thank you, Con. This should be an interesting debate. First off, let me start with providing a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. [http://www.un.org...] Under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt in 1945, the Human Rights Commission was charged with drafting the declaration. Representing starkly contrasting backgrounds in culture and philosophy, the members were able to arrive at common understanding of human rights. Thomas Jefferson's Inalienable Rights encompass a very broad spectrum and therefore, become very vague. Also, they came from one man and one mind. All in all, the Inalienable Rights, having come from one man and being as vague as they are due to the broad spectrum of coverage, can become a type of "dough" that anyone can shape. The drafters of the UDHR took into consideration Jefferson's Inalienable Rights, but as for the reasons stated above, they knew that it could not encompass everything and the populace would desire a more finite declaration. Many cultures were drawn upon to draft the UDHR and ultimately ratify it. They took into consideration the battle cry of the French Revolution, "Libert", "galit", fraternit"," Hammurabi's Code, the work of Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and Socrates, and other things such as the teachings of Buddhism and Hinduism. The first nineteen articles addressed rights related to various personal liberties (life, security of one's person, diverse protections against cruel treatment, equality before the law, etc.), articles 20-26 addressed rights related to social and economic equity, and articles 27-28 addressed rights associated with communal and national solidarity. According to Ren" Cassin, these groups of rights embodied generations of rights. It is due to these reasons that Con's statement above that, "[The] UDHR cannot "be taken more seriously" until the UN recognizes life's Unalienable Rights...as a prerequisite," is an outright foolish claim. Con is insinuating that the Human Rights Commission did not recognize the Inalienable Rights in any way. In conclusion to my first argument, the UDHR is a beautiful, finite document that encompasses the whole of human rights and presents them in a unified, cross-cultural way. Drawing from the considerations taken into account above for the drafting of the UDHR, the drafters also took into account various religions and found the similarities within them that drew upon basic human rights. Therefore, when comparing Jefferson's Inalienable Rights to the UDHR, it is clear that the one that must be taken more seriously is the UDHR because it draws not only from religious standpoints, it also draws upon historical understandings and philosophers' works to become a non-vague, universal understanding of human rights. I look forward to Con's arguments.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously.

The United Nations' (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) cannot "be taken more seriously" until the UN recognizes life's Unalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of positive-feedback (aka Happiness for us humans)" as a prerequisite. . http://www.bookdaily.com... Until they resolved this problem, UDHR is just political window dressing rhetoric for "New World Order" dogma. So Con's position during this debate, is that Unalienable Rights "must be taken more seriously" rather than UDHR.
The Manchester United 98/99 side were better than the Arsenal Invincibles

You can't deny that the Arsenal Invincibles were an amazing side, but the treble winning 98/99 Man United team were even better. Firstly, you have to look at the caliber of our players: The deadly strike partnership of Dwight Yorke and Andy Cole, along with Teddy Sheringham and Ole Gunner Solskjaer. The boss midfield of Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs, Roy Keane and David Beckham. The monstrous defence of Phil and Gary Neville, Jaap Stam, and Denis Irwin. And Peter Schmeichel in goal was just the business. Also, what the Arsenal Invincibles didn't have, was the recognition of their manager after their success. Alex Ferguson was knighted by the Queen after winning the treble. What did Arsene Wenger get? Nothing outside of the league title and a winners medal, which aren't things to be laughed at, but at the same time, aren't as special as the league title, the FA cup, the Champion's League, and a knighthood all in one season. The manager was just as involved and well known as the players, and it stayed that way until he retired. In conclusion, the 98/99 Man United team were better than the Arsenal Invincibles, because of the high caliber of players they had, and how the manager was just as involved and recognized as the players.
iPhones are Garbage

I have a lot of points but I"m lazy didn"t think debating on text would be this boring and your right I only made this account to take your debate because all the other ones were music links and other garbage honestly it"s just personal preference on what phone you enjoy more and it"s such a subjective topic which is why both phones can be seen as great or garbage for example androids are extremely intuitive customizable smartphones or for poor people who can"t afford anything else or Apple is what I said in last arguement or a scam it"s kust what caters to an individual there is no right or wrong or else one of these brands would of gone bankrupt a while ago anyways thanks for being my first debator this was kinda fun at first but gets lame you win sorry dropping out but this is too much work it"s all personal preference
iPhones are Garbage

I think while you may have many valid points that are fair if you were able to show reputable sources showing these claims, you are still looking in the wrong aspect of what makes an iPhone one of a kind. The whole aspect which made iPhone the revolutionary device is the fact the user interface is so user friendly and once you look closely into what makes Apple users so loyal you realize it"s not the hardware your so narrowingly focusing on but it"s the lifestyle that forms from using an Apple product it sais more as to who a person is than the hardware because that"s irrelevant when you see the brand as a whole. The brand did something no other phone manufacturer did and that is create a following in the brand and what it stands for which is what creates this movement of people that will buy most products for the brand behind it not how many giggs the thing has. This is why there is such a huge customer base not because people have been brain washed. It"s the same reason people get a Harley Davidson tattoo or a mug of their favourite sports team they don"t care how much liquid the mug can hold they like what the mug stands for as a whole this can explain why Apple always provide boxes with stickers. You are looking from an outsiders perspective which is the same as Somone not understanding why anyone would get a tattoo of a bike brand in their body not understanding what the brand means to them. My next argument is you may not have any Apple products so you may not know that once you have two or more products you are welcomed to this ecosystem Apple provides and that is so intuitive and convenient for a user such as receiving messages on either Apple product you own and replying with any or photos notes reminders schedules all perfectly working in harmony is something Apple does so flawlessly that no Apple product is excluded from the bubble and this is such a convenience that all users enjoy. It is something Apple has worked so hard to get perfect and something that is so unique and that no Samsung or Sony products could compete with.
iPhones are Garbage

Buying the new iPhone every year is like paying $50/week for a magazine subscription to the exact same issue. To put that simile into perspective: iPhone 4, 4S, 5, 5S, 5C, 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, 7, 7 Plus, 8: DUAL-CORE PROCESSOR, 2GB RAM iPhones are a scam, they leave out any type of features or performance you want because it was cost too much, and spend all profits on advertisement and production. They have brainwashed millions of Americans into believing it's the best phone ever made. The iPhone 4, WAS, the best phone ever made, for it's time. Every phone afterward, they added the most minor detail possible; an inch to the screen, an extra 0.1 GHz to the processor, and a deliberate defect that can destroy the phone with something as little as a software update, like the iOS 11.3.2 update for instance, that overloaded the iPhone 6, 6S, and SE and made them heat up and die, and made the network LTE band on the 7 and 7 Plus break. But, let's not forget to mention the iPhone 8 Plus, that is EXPLODING, and still on sale. More to the reason for all of these defects is that the Apple Care program is offering you an easier way to have your $700 phone deliberately broken by the manufacturer so you can pay to have it repaired, after they take your device and replace it, the old device is used for spare parts, and the used parts are then integrated into their newer, more expensive models, like the 8, 8 Plus, and X. Yes, people, they are made of USED PARTS. Furthermore, it being the only company that uses (and is allowed to use) the iOS platform, whenever review sites do benchmarks and tests between iPhones and android phones, iPhones always tend to "soar through" because technically, they are making continuous minor updates to the original processor to try and run the original software (that hasn't had any features added in years) faster. When you compare it to a Samsung that has quadruple the cores, its not really a fair fight, seeing as it is running Android firmware, with Samsung specific extra features, and is running several processes and features at once instead of just the benchmark app they are using. Comparing an iPhones performance to a Samsung is like comparing a Fiat 500 to a V12 Formula 1 racer, and saying the Fiat won because they were testing gas mileage. "The iPhone has better parts" iPhones have a long history of breaking within a year of getting it. Samsung's and other higher quality Android devices have lasted 4-5 years of moderate use easily if taken care of. It's rumored the new "A11 Bionic" in the 8 Plus and X is actually made by Qualcomm, it's CONFIRMED that the OLED screen in the iPhone X is made by Samsung and the "revolutionary camera" by Sony, the same camera, in fact, that is in the Galaxy Note 8.
iPhones are Garbage

If choosing between using an iPhone and an Android is personal preference, you are choosing between paying more for less or less for more, which is a very easy decision, but some have chosen the wrong path. An easy to use, customizable interface is what caters to the individual. I would call a phone that can be anything, including an iPhone, catering to the individual. But please, fairly, make enough arguments to push the debate through to voting. Even if the arguments are only one letter, it'd be great if the argument went through to the voting period.
pc is better than mac

Lets put it this way.... Macs are like little bikes and PC is like a Car. It is obvious that you are going to get more technical and have more problem on a car (PC) than bikes (MAC), but if you treat your computer well instead of watching porn, downloading game from pirate websites, and hacking people it would all be okay. (Macs are less likely to get viruses than PCs.) Macs do get virus. Don't trust everything in media. 1. Get a PC 2. Save alot of money :) (Macs are more stylish than PCs.) I really don't agree to the fact Macs are more stylish than PCs. There are a lot of software that enables you to change your computer theme and visualization. You are even able to make XP look like vista or Mac or even linux. And take a good look at windows 7 and enjoy the view. (Macs are more reliable than PCs.) Now I will agree on one thing that PC crashes more BUT it has more hardware and probably supports more ram as well. Windows are able to have 24GB ram (Alienware, Ibuypower) (Macs have better customer service than PCs.) Ahhhhh! more old friend Windows Vista. You know it would pretty much be obvious that Mac will have better result in Customer service IN 2008, That's when windows vista came out. Back then programs and hardware wasn't really great with Vista and many people have been stressed and SO DOES MICROSOFT. Let us wait until 2010 and see what will happen. My PREDICTION is that Windows 7 will be one of the greatest OS. No more stress for PC user and Microsoft Macs are really great OS but it isn't great enough to beat PC. I will be waiting for your response
Zoo's are bad for animals.

Alright, sorry about that. It should be good now. I will first state my own case, and then address my opponent's. Zoos take in animals whose habitats have been, or are being, destroyed, or that do not have enough food. Zoos help the animals by putting them in captivity, supplying them with food and a suitable habitat. Some zoos also take in animals who were orphaned as babies or were injured in an accident and can no longer fend for themsselves in the wild. Additional Info: The San Diego Zoo has a center that is devoted to the welfare of endangered or threatened animals. They have been working for over 30 years. This center is called "CRES" the Center for Research Endangered Species. It is the largest Zoo based center of it's kind. They are working world wide (20 other countries) to improve breeding and genetic pools for those species standing on the brink of extinction. This is a multidisciplinary research team, and some of their goals are to, combine field, and lab research/studies to improve long-term captive and wild populations. To maintain and share the genetic knowledge and resources to support conservation. Also to improve the health of both wild and captive populations through shared disgnostics and research with other countries. To help revitalize ecosystems by restoring these species to the wild. There is much more detail about their goals and what they have achieved in the past 30 years. If you'd like more details see the site listed below. This is just one Zoo's efforts to help animals in general. Most Zoos have some program in place to help with breeding, injuried, and/or rehab. of endangered or threatened species. Not all are as large or as estabilished as the CRES, but making an effort is the first step and that alone can help endangered species, or animals in general, by educating the public and planting the seed of compassion. Now to address my opponent's case. --HIS FIRST POINT-- He says zoos do not provide adequate space for their animals. This can be the case in some situations. Obviously, zoos cannot hold the savanna in their backyard. However, the space that is provided (which in most cases in adequate) is beneficial to the animal. As was stated in my argument, most of the animals would be dead if it were not for the zoo. Whatever space they receive helps them. --HIS SECOND POINT-- He says here that zoos affect animals' mentalities poorly. Again, zoos often rescue "problem animals." Most already have deficiencies. And again, the zoos provide another chance at life. While in rare cases the animals will attack, this is certainly not the norm. In the rare cases that this actually happens, the animal was usually either injured, or had a mental deficiency, and was in no way provoked by the zoo. --HIS THIRD POINT-- This is the same as his second contention, which I have already addressed. Having attacked my opponent's case, I await his response. Again, thank you for your understanding. Good debate!
Zoo's are bad for animals.

Pro I will start this by metioning my points and I will elaborate on them in my next round. 1) In these zoos there are not enough room for these animals to live the cages are smaller then they should be for this the animal. Animals should be treated with respect and kindness. Whatever the good intentions of zoo-keepers, animals in zoos suffer. They are inevitably confined in unnaturally small spaces, and are kept from the public by cages and bars. They suffer psychological distress, often displayed by abnormal or self-destructive behaviour. Aquatic animals do not have enough water, birds are prevented from flying away by having their wings clipped and being kept in aviaries. http://animals.howstuffworks.com... this brings me to my next point. 2) Zoo's effect animals mentally In tight spaces, animals are devoid of the "ecologic minimum". In nature, they consume their energy by running, walking, jumping, climbing, hunting, hiding, playing, cleaning and so on. Captive animals are extremely bored. They vent their energy through those stereotypical movements in the small available space, like continuous tours of the cage. This has severe physiological and mental effects. Animals turn aggressive or fearful and their metabolism is deeply affected, the effect being either weight loss, wrong molting, deformed walk and others or, by contrary, obesity, sedentariness, apathy. This change profoundly the typical look of the species. i got this from http://news.softpedia.com... 3) Animal anger this was already talked about in my 2 contention. Because of these mental effects as i stated anger. So these animals attack the keepers or anybody that gets to close and then the animals are blamed for it and are put down.
Owning and Caring For a Pet is Unethical

Thank you for the interesting and compelling rebuttal, Con. I.Religious Grounds A.Religion is not a system of universally applicable ethics. Not only is each religion's general view of diverse ethical situations vastly different, but also each individual's interpretation of what their god deems correct varies. This sliding scale of morality cannot be considered authoritative when considering a universal ethical question. This is why we have law that supersedes preference. B.Dominion Vs. Benevolence In your citation of Genesis 1:26 you fail to make the distinction between man having dominion over animals (man's hierarchical place in the world) and man showing undue benevolence to animals. This passage is more often cited by anti-vegans then pet advocates for its meaning. No ethical system could defend unwarranted cruelty and abuse of animals, but that does not place any burden on man to proactively care for them (especially above their own kind). C.Luke 12 Granted, Luke 12:6 says that God values the life of a sparrow. However, the very next verse states that human life is worth more than that of any sparrow (or animal for that matter). If anything, this verse justifies my claim above yours. II.Symbiotic Relationships Ultimately, there is a definitive difference between a functional animal and a pet. A functional animal may be used as food (the meat industry, the eggs of chickens), your cat (in its propensity as an exterminator), or a seeing-eye dog (to guide the blind). These are not pets any more than employees are children. They are simply functional. I suggest that it is unethical to have pets because they serve no purpose, and it is immoral to seek entertainment with our money while other humans suffer and die needlessly. Overall, my assertion still stands. My values prevail, as my opponent has yet to produce evidence to justify the ownership of a pet for recreational purposes as having some value to supersede the preservation of human life.