BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jaguars are the best

I argue a lion is superior to a jaguar. ~Speed~ Lets first compare speed. The Lion can run up to 50 mph. [1] [2] The jaguar on the other hand only reaches 30 mph and it might (if the conditions are perfect) hit 40 mph. [3] ~Size~ Size is a very important role in success of a predator. The Jaguar weighs about 124 pounds. [4] [5] Tigers on the other hand weigh 330 pounds. [6] Another estimate says they are 265-420 pounds. [7] Due to the fact the lion is bigger and faster is will obviously be "better". ~Is a lion a good predator?~ The Lion is rates #2 on he most successful predators on discovery channels website. [8] The jaguar does not end up on the list. The Lion hunts some of the biggest prey and is very fierce. [8] Also as they work in teams this deems them very powerful hunters. [8] ~ Team work~ Lions generally hunt in groups (prides). [9] These groups form deadly tactics and attacks and their cooperation deems them one of the most deadly predators in the world. [9] jaguars are generally solo atnti-social animals. [10] This may be detrimental as if they encountered, the lion would call its buddies, the jaguar would lose. As I stated the Jaguar isn't in the top 10 list, whereas lions are. [8] Conclusion: The Lion is better. Sources: http://www.infoplease.com... [1] Natural History Magazine, March 1974 [2] http://www.experts123.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] Visual Guide to the World's Wildlife. New York City: Dorling Kindersley. [5] http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://animals.nationalgeographic.com... [7] http://animal.discovery.com... [8] http://www.african-lion.org... [9]. Baker, Natural History and Behavior, pp. 8–16. [10]
Making Euthanasia Illegal is Selfish

In order for my opponent to win this debate, he must prove that making euthanasia illegal does in fact acknowledge the needs of EVERYONE. Since selfishness acknowledges only the needs of the self, my opponent must prove that making euthanasia illegal does not ignore the needs and values of others. My basic argument revolves around the following: Banning euthanasia does not accept people who value a peaceful death; rather it only accepts people who value a death with suffering, and this is selfish. When euthanasia is illegal, people who want to die with ‘dignity’ cannot, because banning euthanasia ignores their needs and values. I would not euthanize myself, because it is in my belief that it isn’t the right thing to do. However, I would not make euthanasia illegal because I am not selfish. I accept/approve other people’s values, needs and beliefs. First of all, if someone thinks euthanasia should be banned because it is wrong, he is selfish because he doesn’t accept what others think is right or wrong and he thinks that what he believes should override what others believe, when they are making a decision about their own life. But if someone thinks euthanasia should be banned for another reason, he is not acknowledging the importance of others values, therefore he is selfish. He is not willing to compromise, and find a way where people who value euthanasia, can have access to it, and make sure it is used properly and safely. Here is an example: If someone bans euthanasia because it is ‘a slippery slope’, rather than ‘wrong’, they are essentially stating that because we cannot control euthanasia, it should be banned. They might argue that they aren’t selfish because they are fighting for the greater good, but the fact remains that people’s needs and values will be ignored. If they really want to control euthanasia, and not be selfish, there are other ways of doing it, instead of banning it completely. For example, stronger government regulation can be a solution. If they aren’t willing to try other ways of controlling the abuses of euthanasia, and they just want it to be banned automatically, they are being selfish because they don’t think that others needs and values are more important and worth their time, than their need to fix a problem that is created because of the legalization of euthanasia, without proper regulation. Inherently: existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute To conclude, making euthanasia illegal is inherently selfish because it simply doesn’t acknowledge the values of others. I urge my opponent to find a situation where banning euthanasia does not have ‘selfish’ written all over it. I look forward to my opponents’ arguments, and I would like to remind my opponent that rebuttals are not allowed in the second round, as agreed to in the introduction.
Making Euthanasia Illegal is Selfish

Resolution: Making Euthanasia illegal is selfishDefinitionsEuthanasia: Also called mercy killing. The act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, especially a painful, disease or conditionIllegal: Forbidden by law or statuteSelfish: devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, values. etc., regardless of others.Pro vs ConPro must prove that the illegalization of euthanasia is selfish.Con must prove that the illegalization of euthanasia is not selfish.Debate Procedure Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Main Points [No Rebuttals]Round 3: Rebuttals [New points may be introduced]Round 4: Conclusion, Final Rebuttals.*If statistics are given, sources must be provided.Good luck to whoever accepts my debate!
A shark is a better animal than walrus.

Did I forget to mention the walrus's natural ability for ninja skills? The shark would not even see the walrus coming. How can a shark take a double tusk to the back? The answer is that it can't and would be defeated. Therefore, the shark could not be better in the aspect of combat. A walrus is better in more ways than one. The walrus was also voted most attractive creature of 2012. Does the shark have any such awards? I think not. You need to seriously think about what you say about the walrus. I wouldn't be surprised if sharks became extinct from the efforts of the infamous walrus, who always wins the skirmishes. So I ask you to think about the error of your ways, and repents to the walrus!
A shark is a better animal than walrus.

To start out my argument, I would like to point out that a walrus could not stab a shark with its tusks. A shark could avoid the tusks and swim away. It would then swim lower and attack the walrus from the bottom. It could then attack it from its weakest point, its back. It could drag the walrus underwater never to be seen again. Plus a shark is a much faster than a walrus and much more agile. It also has that awesome dorsal fin. What does a walrus have? Two giant tusks it can't even use.
Lannan13's 250th Debate Resolved: The United States Marine Corps should continue to exist.

"First of is SOCOM, aka the Navy SEALs. When you put the math together of comparisons together you can find that the Marines numbers are over 202,000 active duty while the SEALs only have 2,400. The Marines are primarily a invasion force and they do everything that other branches can do, as I brought up and went uncontested in my last round." As my sources pointed out the only units used by the Marines in invasions are ones are the Marines special forces known as Socom. I've also shown that Marines not under Socom have been acting as an occupier force in Iraq. Without the Marines invasions would still occur under Socom. We'd just have to increase the number of special forces a little in the other branches. My opponent's premise that we need the Marines because they're an invasion force falls flat. "I have also given a list of Marine Corps jobs and MOS that the Marines offer and if you look you can also see the only ones that the Marines only do and there are quite a few thousand." This is not a good reason to keep the Marines. I haven't argued that the Marines don't do anything. My argument is that they don't do anything not already done or could easily be done by another branch of the military. My opponent brought up a bunch of jobs that every other branch of the military already does. He claims there is 100s of unique ones but fails to mention any. At one point he said they act as glorified body guards in foreign embassies something which any other branch of the military could easily do. His other premise that they do unique things only they can do is also destroyed and has been since round 2. ". As I brought up earlier and also dropped by my opponent that the Marines are the toughest branch and the hardest. They are the world's most feared fighting force." This actually was never brought up. There were some quotes by guys pandering to the Marines so they'd get loud cheers from their audience but it was obviously only put there for rhetorical purposes. My opponent never brought up any evidence let alone made the argument that the marines are the toughest branch of the military. CONCLUSION I've proven that the Marines aren't needed. They do nothing not already done or can easily be done by another branch of the military. Without more compelling arguments from my opponent it's my opinion that the voters must vote con. Thanks for reading.
Lannan13's 250th Debate Resolved: The United States Marine Corps should continue to exist.

I'm going to go over the only two points that my opponent continually brings up. First of is SOCOM, aka the Navy SEALs. When you put the math together of comparisons together you can find that the Marines numbers are over 202,000 active duty while the SEALs only have 2,400. The Marines are primarily a invasion force and they do everything that other branches can do, as I brought up and went uncontested in my last round. (. http://www.diffen.com...) I also brought up how the Air Force special forces are actually included in the Marine Corps and it is considered a basic job. The Navy SEALs is a basic force that the US would never through the entire unit on the front lines while the Marines is that elite branch. As I brought up earlier and also dropped by my opponent that the Marines are the toughest branch and the hardest. They are the world's most feared fighting force. I have also given a list of Marine Corps jobs and MOS that the Marines offer and if you look you can also see the only ones that the Marines only do and there are quite a few thousand. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) In conclusion, one can see that the Marines have provided a great history of fighting and not to mention that that most of my points were not even refuted by my opponent. I have shown that the Marines have and always be part of American defense forces and operation as well as that the Marines are the most feared fighting force in the world! Semper Fi!
Lannan13's 250th Debate Resolved: The United States Marine Corps should continue to exist.

I don't have much time to post this, but I wanted to touch on 2 things and then in my final round, I'll give my opinion on what's happened in the debate so far. My argument is essentially that the marines don't do anything other branches of the military don't already do or could very easily do, and my rebuttal was that Socom handles all the aggressive military endeavors such as invasions. Socom handles the special forces in each branch of the military. I apologize for the brevity, and look forward to my opponents final statement.
Lannan13's 250th Debate Resolved: The United States Marine Corps should continue to exist.

Contention 1: History I'm afraid my opponent is mistaken. The Marine Corps birthdate is November 10th, 1775. The Marines are older than this nation. "On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress approved the resolution to establish two battalions of Marines able to fight for independence at sea and on shore. This date marks the official formation of the Continental Marines." 1st Marine Corps Commandant: Major Samuel Nicholas (1775-1783) (http://www.marines.com...) My opponent makes a straw man argument stating that just because the Marines are hit the hardest under budget cuts does not necissarially mean that the Marines are not needed. The Pentagon has projected and prepared for Sequestration again in 2016 and they have determined that the Marines would be shrunk down to 175,000 active duty (which is above the lowest level that current Marine Commandant General James F. Amos wanted), the Army would lose 450,000 Soldiers, and the Air Force would retire over 80 Air Crafts, and the Navy would halt all purchases on F-35's. (http://www.defenseone.com...) They currently own 194,000 Active duty which means the Marines would only lose 19,000. When you compare the numbers here you can see that the Army is actually hit harder. I'd also like to point out that the Marine Corps Recurit Training is the hardest as if a Marine were to leave the Marine Corps and go to any other branch they would be able to skip over any other military branch's Recruit Training while if you are anything but a Marine, even a 4 star general and wanted to join the Marine Corps you would have to start all over as a Private at Parris Island or San Deigo Training program. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) “Based on the detailed planning of our working group, and in conjunction with independent analysis, we have determined that with sequestered budgets a force design of 174,000 is right sized to allow the Marine Corps to remain America’s crisis response force,” Amos wrote Contention 2: Invasion Force When my opponent brought up that the Marines do is be body guards he is highly incorrect. The Marines have millions of millions of MOS (military Occupation Schools) ranging from CBRN defense specialist to photography and from Drill Instructor to mechanic. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Here in this first video it will show you the Marines in Operation Enduring Freedom. Also, Con is highly incorrect as in the book Semper Fi: The Definitive Illustrated History of the US Marines, it shows the Marines actions all over the Middle East. In Operation Enduring Freedom the US Marines sent in their special forces in 15th and 26th MEU and they also sent in MARSOC (Marine Forces Special Operation Command). (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) and (Priddy, Maj. Wade (2006). "Marine Detachment 1: Opening the door for a Marine force contribution to USSOCom". Marine Corps Gazette (Marine Corps Association) 90 (6): 58–59.) Contention 3: US Marine Existance challenged before.
Lannan13's 250th Debate Resolved: The United States Marine Corps should continue to exist.

FRAMEWORK This isn't a policy debate. We aren't discussing changing the status quo. It's simply a debate on whether the Marines should exist or not. Do they serve a purpose that necessitates them to exist is how I interpret the resolution. Obviously we aren't debating abolishing the Marines as it's much easier to keep existing bureaucracies than to abolish them even when they serve a purpose that could easily be combined with the purpose of a similar bureaucracy. With all that being said, I interpret the BOP to be split to show that the Marines should continue to exist. When this debate is over, the voters will see that the Marine Corp is a completely unnecessary part of the American armed forces and isn't really needed at all. HISTORY The Marines were formed in 1794. [1] At the time, America didn't really have a standing army, navy or air force. If they did than the Marines most certainly would've never been formed. Now that America has a standing army it is no longer necessary for the Marines to exist and in fact the Marines are being phased out already. When the government makes military budget cuts or it's always the Marines that are hit first. [2] You see the United States government knows that the Marines aren't needed. It's political suicide to come out and say it, but politicians are saying it with their actions. INVASION FORCE My opponent says that the Marines are needed because they act as an invasion force and guard embassies. Let's face the facts anybody in the army could stand next to a foreign dignitary in one of these embassies and guard him and the embassy just as easily. It may make the dignitary feel a little better that a Marine is guarding him (due to the feelings the title brings), but the feeling is shallow. The army is trained to do the same thing, shoot the enemy. The Marines no longer operate as the primary invasion force for the USA. Now most of the invading and the front lines work is being done by SOCOM, as it was in Operation enduring Freedom[3][4][5] The Marines are doing the same thing as the Army in Iraq and other locations. They are there in a support capacity. [4][6][7] CONCLUSION The Marines serve no purpose and don't do anything that isn't already being done by or which could easily be done by another branch of the military. When you combine the with the fact that the government is already slowly phasing them out you can see that the Marines shouldn't exist. They are pretty useless. sources [1] http://www.archives.gov... [2] http://www.nationalreview.com... [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com... [4] http://www.quora.com... [5] West, Bing; General Ray L. Smith (September 2003). The March Up: Taking Baghdad with the 1st Marine Division. New York: Bantam Books. p. 17. ISBN 0-553-80376-X. [6] http://ktla.com... [7] http://www.cbsnews.com...
Lannan13's 250th Debate Resolved: The United States Marine Corps should continue to exist.

“Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share. “ Ned Dolan Contention 1: From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli The US Marines are the world's most feared fighting force in the world. (http://www.usmarinesbirthplace.com...) The United States Marines were involved and are involved in the nation's greatest moments. The Marines lead the attack on the Fort that overlooked Mexico City during the Mexican-American War. The Marines have also lead the attack on Tripoli to help end the War against the Babaray States. During the American Expansionalist Period the President deployed the Marines across the globe from Bejing, China to Vera Cruz, Mexico. The Marines were originally created to help the Navy storm ships during the Revolutionary War, but have evolved over time. During World War 1, the Marines were sent to France and the French troops at Bellea Woods wanted to retreat and the Marine Major Lloyd Williams said, “Retreat? Hell we just got here!” At the Battle the Marines forced the Germans out and fought so ferce that they earned the nickname "Teufelhunden” which is German for Devil Dogs. (http://www.marines.com...) In World War 2, the Marines swiftly swept through the Pacific in their fight against the Japanese. At the Battle of Iwo Jima the Marines rose the iconic flag over Mountain there. “The raising of that flag on Suribachi means a Marine Corps for the next five hundred years. “ James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy; 23 February 1945 In Korea, while most of the UN troops (including the US Army) retreated bellow the 38th Parrallel, the US Marines were trapted in the Chosin Resivoir. Many people saw the Marines movement out of the area as a retreat, but the Marine officer replied, “Retreat, Hell we’re just attacking in a different direction.” “The safest place in Korea was right behind a platoon of Marines. Lord, how they could fight!” MGen. Frank E. Lowe, USA; Korea, 26 January 1952 “I have just returned from visiting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world! “ General of the Armies Douglas MacArthur; Korea, 21 September 1950 Contention 2: Army vs. Marine Corps Many People compare the the two, but there is one major thing that stands out. The Marines are an invasion force while the Army is an occupationial force. Basically after the Marines go in and take the place over the Army then comes in to hold down the fort while the Marines advance in the war. (http://www.wisegeek.org...) But in all reality though. If you look at Special forces units in other branches like for say the paratroopers in the Air Force. The Marines have the same exact thing except they are the Marine Air Crewmen. The Marines doesn't concider it a special force, because it is a normal MOS (Military Occupationial School). If you look at average intellegence aswell to enter the military you must get a 31 on the ASVAB to get into the Marine Corps, but for the Army you need 21. The score is out of 100 and I got a 72 on my ASVAB just for comparision.
Lannan13's 250th Debate Resolved: The United States Marine Corps should continue to exist.

This is Lannan13's 250th debate over the existance of the United States Marine Corps. I'd like to thank Wylted ahead of time for accepting this debate.RulesFirst round is acceptance and definitions.Round 2 is Contentions, no rebuttles.Round 3 is Contentions and rebuttles.Round 4 is rebuttles and conclusions.No semanticsNo Trolling.Marine Corps- a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces trained for land, sea, and air combat, typically for land combat in conjunction with an amphibious or airborne landing, and whose commandant is responsible to the secretary of the navy. (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Should- simple past tense of shall. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) continue- to remain in a place; abide; stay: (http://dictionary.reference.com...)Exist- to continue to be or live: (http://dictionary.reference.com...)
Marijuana is addicting and a drug.

I'm actually going to take a little bit of this seriously. "First off any sort of dependacy is a sort of addiction." That's straw man as it has not been established that people are dependent on marijuana, and it was never in my argument. "the fact that you are even willing to argue with me about this states that you obviously enjoy marijuana." That's, first of all, a non sequitur logical fallacy due to the complete lack of a logical connection between the two parts of the sentence, and it's also an ad hominem logical fallacy as it is designed to personally attack me without addressing the issue. "and a drug is anything that causes a physiological or psychological reaction due to consumption, injection, inhalation, or snorting." I need some evidence on his part, as I used the encyclopedia to back up my argument that it's not a drug. "And people do depend on Marijuana." Thank you for the baseless assertion. "the thought process of most marijuana users can be summed up like this; I'm bored... I know I'll smoke some weed!' or 'I'm depressed, Weed will make me feel better.' that is dependency and addiction." First of all, that's not relevant to the resolution and is non sequitur due to the lack of logical connection to the statement it's supposed to support. Second of all, this does not nearly sum up the thought process behind smoking marijuana. "thank you very much." You're welcome. "the fact that your username is used in your source tells me that you wrote that yourself...." Jonbonbon's Abridged Encyclopedia is actually published in a store by my house, and although it was written by me, it's been approved by experts in the area that I wrote about. In this case, it's the field of Botany. Aside from all of that, you haven't even provided evidence. You can't complain if I wrote something. Even further, getting addicted to your own dopamine, which is the chemical in your brain that creates pleasure, does not constitute addiction to whatever brought that about. It's just the thing you use to get there. Marijuana is not in itself an actual addictive substance. Have a seat.
Marijuana is addicting and a drug.

First off any sort of dependacy is a sort of addiction. the fact that you are even willing to argue with me about this states that you obviously enjoy marijuana. and a drug is anything that causes a physiological or psychological reaction due to consumption, injection, inhalation, or snorting. Marijuana falls under that. And people do depend on Marijuana. the thought process of most marijuana users can be summed up like this; I'm bored... I know I'll smoke some weed!" or "I'm depressed, Weed will make me feel better." that is dependency and addiction. thank you very much. the fact that your username is used in your source tells me that you wrote that yourself....