BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
animal rights

Although the resolution is unclear, I am taking it as my opponent is affirming that all Animals deserve rights. == DEFINITIONS == Scientifically, an animal which comes under the Kingdom "Animalia" is an animal (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). I am assuming my opponent is excluding Humans from the list of animals. == CON == === PARASITES === Cestoda, commonly known as tapeworms, are parasites. They are also animals. They are flatworms, and they are also parasitic and cause great harms to humans. "Cestodes (tapeworms) and digeneans (flukes) cause important diseases in humans and their livestock, and monogeneans can cause serious losses of stocks in fish farms. Schistosomiasis, also known as bilharzia or snail fever, is the second most devastating parasitic disease in tropical countries, behind malaria. The Carter Center estimates that 200 million people in 74 countries are infected with the disease, and half the victims live in Africa. " -- . http://en.wikipedia.org... Clearly parasitical animals cause a great deal of human loss. Therefore it is justifiable to kill these animals before they harm humans, as it is their nature to be parasitical, and cause the aforementioned destructive harm. === ANIMALS CAN'T HAVE RIGHTS === Rights exist to order. They exist as long as the creatures involve can respect it, and recognise it as a boundary, and are rationally motivated to take action should that person go against there rights. Since animals can't recognise these rights, and aren't rationally motivated, they can't have rights. I await my opponents response.
The Marxist theory of natural State disintegration is false

Unfortunately pro was unable to start off the debate but I will continue regardless. It is true that the control of the state over the classes keeps classes in existence. Therefore when classes are destroyed the natural conclusion is that the state will be destroyed by its unnecessary role. Also one must concede that so long as there are classes there will be class antagonism, and so one can also conclude that such organizations of society (means of production) must then be unstable. One then must assume that since classless societies (communism) having no such class antagonisms must therefore be inherently more stable. Being that things in nature and society move from a state of instability to a state of stability it must then be assumed that the society that lacks instability will come into existence over a period of time. For example the Soviet Union came into existence as the first socialist state, but it still retained a system of classes. The old expropriators were simply replaced. That government was ultimately to collapse, just as all attempts at enforcing class restrictions upon the people of the world. In conclusion the state cannot survive the stresses of class antagonism simply because it is inherently unstable, and thus by simple reasoning will be replaced by the more stable classless society.
The Marxist theory of natural State disintegration is false

===Definitions===The "Marxist theory of natural State disintegration" may be aptly summarized by Marx and Engels themselves from the Manifesto of the Communist Party:Political power [the State], properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat in its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away the old conditions of production by force, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of class generally and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.[1]The clear implications of this point is that since the State is only existent as an institution for one class to oppress another, if the proletarian were to destroy the bourgeois as a class, then there would be no reason for the State to exist and it would naturally wither away (ushering in stateless communism). The Pro will argue against this position while the Con will defend it against Pro's criticisms.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.5. Primary BoP is on Pro.===Sources===[1] Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Ch. 2, Proletarians and Communists. Available online at: (http://www.marxists.org...)
The World is Racist at Heart - 5's & 2's logic proves inevitable doom for anti-racist Whites

Introduction to 2's and 5's In the beginning the world was racist at heart, men wanted heaven for their race, but after some events every man was in pursuit of heaven for himself; at first it was unintentionally, but the mind of man had degraded over time, to the point where individuals pursue heaven intentionally. There'll come a day where a selection of other races overpower the white race through this stupidity. This theory is called the "2's & 5's". Where white people are declared to be 2's, and other races are declared to be 5's. I will now explain the logic of 2's and 5's. The 2 aspect in White-2's, is the fact we are social, and the critical premise here is: _"I & You"_ The stupid word-technology is not as intelligent as the human mind. This is the 2's aspect. The 5 aspect in Other-5's, is the fact they are anti-social, and the critical premises here is _"Us & Them"_ "Conspiracy"_ _"Word"_ _ "Race"_ They exploit the stupid word-technology with their intelligent human minds. This is the 5's aspect. The Theory of 2's and 5's. '...but the mind of man has degraded over time, to the point where individuals pursue heaven intentionally.' The aspect of 2's an abstruse subject, it's difficult, but possible, to find evidence for the mind of man degrading over time. An example, it was said that some people intentionally down-vote threads on Reddit for their own heaven. Now, this happens world-wide in many different formats; not just on Reddit, but in society as a whole there are players who have degraded minds. The word-technology, being lesser than the mind, and being as esteemed as it is by degraded minds in the complexity. It's easily exploited by a greater force, and that is where the 5's-aspect comes into play. The aspect of 5's is not so abstruse, it's easy to exploit the aspect of 2's. For example, while the 2's have degraded from original racist nature, they now discriminate any racist claims as 'racism'. The 2's do not conspire and the 2's aren't anti-social. The 5's on the other hand, understand their racist roots, and will use this against them; where the 2's anti-racism is benefiting the 5's mission. Contrary to 2's, they conspire; on the 2's word-technology, and the racist roots 2's have degraded from.
Intervening to create democracy in third-world countries is the obligation of capable societies

- Keep to the topicImportant terms have been defined using Google Dictionary: Intervening - Come between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of events- he acted outside his authority when he intervened in the dispute- their forces intervened to halt the attackDemocracy - A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representativesThird-world - The developing countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin AmericaObligation - An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitmentCapable - Having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thingSociety - The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered communityMiscellaneous:My opponent should feel free to mention historical events to back up his/her case, but I don't want this to degenerate to an argument based on those events, so please try to stick to the principles as much as possible. This is my first debate, so I'm still getting used to this stuff!
Reeses are the BEST candy

Thank you for your arguments. I shall now respond.M&Ms has been PROVEN to be a loved candy, or at least a well-purchased one, being the most sold in the United States. If something is liked that much, why not continue to make more variety to the initial product itself? M&Ms has had their variety exclusively within their candy type since the beginning, as no others have strayed outside of this. Reese's, however, branches out into other items such as candy bars and peanut butter. And as I stated before, more variety doesn't make the original product better. It just makes it so that there's a different variation of the product. Similar to vanilla/chocolate ice cream. They're both ice cream, but none is truly "better" than the other, as it's a matter of taste. Even if one is preferred, that doesn't make it better."But it contradicts your argument of the M&Ms being well sold!"Let me put it to you like this:There are two main MOBAs that people play: Dota 2 and League of Legends. The two communities, needless to say, hate each other. The LoL community believes their MOBA is the best, however the Dota fans believe otherwise. I play Dota myself and prefer it more. However, does my opinion based on the game make it the "best MOBA ever"? In an opinionated mind, yes. However, the truth is is that each MOBA has its own art styles, gameplay, and systems. One game has some elements the other doesn't. It allows people who prefer such things to play the games they like. If one game was dubbed the "best" then everyone would think that game is the best and no other game is that good. The no one would play that game (except for a few people).The same can be applied to this. If one candy was determined the "best" then why make other candies? There's no point. The reason other candies are made is to appeal others' tastes. If I prefer M&Ms right now, I'll tale M&Ms! If I prefer Reese's, I'll go get some Reese's! We are able to choose these things because so many candies exist. If everything was the same or one dubbed "the best", then what's the point of making other stuff to compete? They're the best anyway.Conclusion: Pro has not fulfilled BoP to prove Reese's is the best candy. I have even proved that one brand of candy, M&Ms, outsells it and has just as much varieties of its product. I state that opinions are not the determining factor of which candy is the best. If opinions decided which was the best, then wouldn't every candy be the best? Based on this, Pro has failed to meet his BoP, and I have successfully refuted his claims.Thank you your time and the debate. Vote wisely.
Reeses are the BEST candy

First off I will defiantly take up your offer on the tips. Second if the product isn't good then why make more of the same product in different styles ? something about that product must be good in order for a company to continuously make something new from it. Third: Reese's can be just as versatile as any other candy, including M&Ms, my candy of preference could be used in ice cream, cake, cookies, cereal, trail mix, etc. In fact it is sold good that they made an ice cream out of it. Agreeing with my opponent it is the consumers choice on what they want to do with the candy , meaning if they want Reese's Steak then thy can have it.
Reeses are the BEST candy

I shall now rebut. (It's ok if you're a beginner, you can add me as a friend and I'll teach you some tips :D) Opponents states, using their source, that Reese's has lots of products available for all of its consumers. While it is a good trait to have for a company (add products based off of the needs of consumers), more variety does not necessarily make a product "better". My statement at first sounds contradictory. It makes a company better but it doesn't make a product itself good? Allow me to elaborate. Multiple varieties for a product are a good thing. But the product itself fails to become better. If (in your example) I make a white chocolate version of Reese's, is the original candy (the version with the dark chocolate) improved or modified in any way? While it does improve the product's appeal to other consumers, due to them wanting the white chocolate version instead of the dark chocolate, this only loops back to my point of each person has their own tastes and preferences. Opponent asks for other products made by other companies: In my first source [1] M&Ms have 11 different varieties of their product. Opponent may argue that Reese's has more variety to their varieties (heh_, but M&Ms, arguably, have more VERSATILITY. Variety: the quality or state of being different or diverse; the absence of uniformity, sameness, or monotony. [2] Versatility: having or capable of many uses. [3] M&Ms can be used in numerous baked goods, such as cookies, brownies, and bars. They are also occasionally used in trail mix. While Reese's has more differentiation, the whole goal of this debate for Pro is to prove Reese's is the best CANDY. As such, judging by the source opponent gave me, one of his products is invalid. So M&Ms have an equal amount of variety (11) in comparison to Reese's in terms of candy types, and M&Ms have more versatility. So arguably, here, M&Ms win. Not to mention it winning in sales as well. As for the website, however, the website is only used for the marketing of said candy, and doesn't improve the candy in any way, shape, or form. It simply makes people want it more (or less, depending on the person, again, matter of taste). Again, it is a matter of taste and preference. Some prefer Reese's and some M&Ms, Skittles, Twix, etc. You can't justify that one thing is the best amongst all others just by opinions. A lot of people may prefer it, but that doesn't make it necessarily the "best" candy. As I said, a lot of people like M&Ms, however some prefer Skittles more (including myself). Is Skittles immediately the best candy based off of my preferences? No. The best candy can be determined by a numerous amount of people with numerous amounts of opinions. It really is up to the person to say what they think is the best. If you think it's the best, that's fine, and I respect your opinion. However it is very opinionated and subjective to state that one candy is the best based on a matter of preference. Best of luck in R3. Sources: [1] . http://www.mms.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Reeses are the BEST candy

You have clearly done your research on this , I must repeat myself when I say that I'm a beginner. As shown in my first source the Reese's candy is the best for the reason of the company has multiple products. I would like for my opponent to name multiple products made by these " top candies ".there is also a white chocolate product for those that prefer the vanilla side, how many candies are that considerate. Also no other candy website is cooler than that of the Reese's, a candy with a beast website must be doing great on their sales , therefore must be preferred the most due to the fact that their the best . Sources: 1. https://www.hersheys.com...
Reeses are the BEST candy

The BoP is on Pro to PROVE that no other candy is better. First off, Pro's claim about Reese's is VERY subjective. He (implicitly) states that no other candy currently existing is better than that of Reese's. First of all, I should state the obvious: people have different tastes and prefer different things. For example, I prefer vanilla over chocolate, but some believe otherwise. It doesn't matter what we think, as none is truly "better" than another. It's just different flavors available to different people with different tastes. If the human race was similar in every single way, and we all ate every piece of candy existing in the world as we know it today, could we honestly say that Reese's are the best candy? First of all these are very extreme conditions as no one is exactly the same as one other person. As such, each person develops different habits and lifestyles, therefore different tastes and interests. In terms of candy, even candy of other countries must be considered into this, as Pro states that no other candy is better than Reese's. Let's take multiple different polls from different sites. The first site [1] has Reese's as its fifth best candy and not its first. While it is still high in the rankings, other candies, namely M&Ms, Twizzlers, Hershey's Kisses, & Snickers surpass it. In this second source [2] it shows M&Ms as the most sold candies in the U. S. Reese's is also well sold but not to the degree of M&Ms. Needless to say there are also studies which state that, in fact, Reese's is the best. One article lists it at the best [3] with others mentioned before as close behind. However all of this is near irrelevant to this point: each and every person prefers their own. With so many types of candy existing in the world, each person has their own favorites. It's very opinionated to say that one candy is better than another when people are so diverse and have so many different types. As well, as in my previous sources, M&Ms are more sold than Reese's, so clearly more people are enjoying M&Ms than Reese's, even with Reese's even having high sales as well. To summarize, each person has their own tastes and enjoyment and to say one candy is better than every other is very subjective and opinion-based. Best of luck in R2 to prove that Reese's is, indeed, the best candy. Sources: [1] . http://content.usatoday.com... [2] . http://images.businessweek.com... [3] . http://www.businessinsider.com...
Science suffers from a fundamental flaw when describing reality.

There is one assumption that must be granted for this topic to be debated successfully: Science claims it is discovering truths about reality. Here is my argument: Science cannot describe to us the true nature of reality. To paraphrase Richard Rorty, the idea that the truth is 'out there' (i.e., outside of our own mind) is a hold-over from the theological world view. Most of our existence as a species has involved an existence in which an external power held a monopoly on truth. Science has since (thankfully) replaced the theological world view as the two paradigms are mostly incompatible and science and its method have proven more correct in describing reality. However, science is wrong when it claims, similar to its theological ancestor, that it can provide truth. Scientists often speak as though their findings are somehow describing reality. They are wrong. They are not describing reality but only their understanding of reality given the tools they use. For example, for hundreds of years Newton's laws of physics were thought to describe some fundamental truth of our reality. Why? Because they worked. They worked so well, in fact, that they helped us successfully launch spacecraft into orbit. Then came Einstein. Einstein showed that Newton was 'wrong.' The Einsteinian view of reality is today more correct than the Newtonian. However, it is my contention not only that the Einsteinian view of reality will one day be overturned (given our species has enough time and resources available to it) but that it has not, in fact, discovered any fundamental truth about reality. The scientific method does not discover any truth about the world around us. It merely succeeds in fitting a framework around a particular subject which it then calls truth. If the history of science is any guide, the frameworks created by science will be modified, changed, and eventually overturned, for new, more fashionable frameworks that work better.
There is evidence for creationism.

I will accept my opponent's request and simply answer his two questions. The evidence for creationism is simply everything around us. As I did in the last round, I will explain how the existence of 'stuff' is evidence of a creator. For anything that we can observe, there is always something that caused it to be how it is. That thing must also have a cause, and that cause must also have one. We can either conclude from this that there must be an infinite chain of causes, or that something was the ultimate 'first cause.' It can also be said that the concept of an infinite chain of sequences is incomprehensible. Therefore, a reasonable person could easily accept that there must have been a first cause. However, it is true that all things natural, as far as we can tell, require a cause. Therefore, if there is a first cause, it must be a supernatural force. Still with me? So far, we have a reasonable person with evidence that there is a supernatural force that created the universe. It could stop there, but people are more curious than that. In an effort to explain just what this supernatural force is, people would look at what possible supernatural forces there are. The only supernatural force we have managed to come up with that would be capable of creation is a god. It could probably be said that anything supernatural with the ability to create something would have to be a god. In order to create such a seemingly complex system, one would think that this god would have to have some level of intelligence, especially by meager human standards. Therefore, this reasonable person just now, using reason, came to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent creator. Therefore, evidence for creationism. I suppose, to use their own lingo, you could say that "the evidence for creationism is all of creation." Thanks for the debate, I wonder how people will vote.
There is evidence for creationism.

The elves I proposed hypothetically didn't create the world, they simply made it beautiful, and are dumb as doornails. Attempting to make creationism the broadest brush you can is certainly a good idea as far as tactics go. Why you should even include the uncaused expansion of matterenergy and spacetime from a single point 14.73 billion years ago. Or any number of non-religious ideas. However, I simply put to the topic of debate the idea of creationism. God did it! -- Any stinking reason we should think so? Not something which could make one think there is an intelligent creator, but reasonably believe there to be one. You could argue that a cloud is a reason to believe in goblins, but that isn't evidence because it cannot reasonably allow one to draw a connection between the two. You are correct to offer that there need not be proof just a fragment of something that directly suggests that creationism is true. All you're doing is trying to confuse things. Please, just answer two questions: What is your evidence for creationism? Why does that evidence make reasonable people decide that God created life or the universe?