BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dogs are better than cats

Firstly, you explaining how dogs need to go outside is irrelevant to your initial argument. Keeping a cat indoors and not exercising with it is both unhealthy for you and the cat. Since dogs have to go outside, it is better for both the dog and you. Dogs, need to go outside. You can’t just walk it when it needs to go, you may be needed at work, school etc. Also, explain why it is a either-or choice in your second choice. Also cat toys. Also, dogs don't have to always go outside to do it's business. Dogs can use pads left on the floor to do their business. [2] There are also fake grass pads that are used like a litter box. [3] These grass pads are better, last longer than a litter box, and doesn't stink up the house. Also, you don't need to constantly buy cat litter. I looked at source 2 and I knew that this wouldn't work for solids. And number 3 seems to be a temporary solution. Anyone wondering, #3 is a suitcase(unfolded) sized patch of what it is made out of and appears that regular cleaning is needed #1 is almost litterarily(Bad pun?) a rug. It is also ~$50. Also, a litter box doesn't have to stink up the house. Dogs were domesticated much before cats. [4] Therefore dogs have been helping and aiding humans for much longer. Red Herring. It does not matter in context. Though you may think this is a bad thing, it is actually good. Training a dog requires skill, focus, love, compassion, responsibility and more. Training a dog helps strengthen all these things. Also, when training a family dog, the family comes together and works hard together to make this new furry member obedient and fun. It takes time. Either way, you have to train them to be a sight dog. Cats can also do this. All-in-all, being a pet, this is moot. When you have leftover scraps that you can't eat but don't want to waste, a dog can eat it. ...Leftovers? I may have already mentioned this, but here is more proof. In this article, a dog chased after a baby who was about to go in the water at the beach in drown. As quick as possible, the dog laid in front of the baby, blocking it's path. [5] OK. Not sure how this relates to family life. This isn't a everyday thing. Dogs are much stronger, smarter developed creatures than cats. They can save lives much more than cats. They cheer you up when you are sad. A cat comes to you when you bring out the can opener, while the dog runs to the door to greet you after a hard days work. This Hasty generalization? Pro has not proved that Dogs are BETTER pets then cats, and my assumption of this being about pets is agreed, by Pro's lack of a objection.
Dogs are better than cats

"Cats are safer. " This is not entirely true. Cats kill infants. [1] Though it is not purposely, they still kill, which makes them just as dangerous. "They take up less space. You could have most any cat be a indoor cat and have things be just fine. Big dogs cant have that, and little dogs have to go outside and do it's business." Firstly, you explaining how dogs need to go outside is irrelevant to your initial argument. Keeping a cat indoors and not exercising with it is both unhealthy for you and the cat. Since dogs have to go outside, it is better for both the dog and you. Also, dogs don't have to always go outside to do it's business. Dogs can use pads left on the floor to do their business. [2] There are also fake grass pads that are used like a litter box. [3] These grass pads are better, last longer than a litter box, and doesn't stink up the house. Also, you don't need to constantly buy cat litter. Now for my arguments: Argument 1: Dogs have been domesticated longer. Dogs were domesticated much before cats. [4] Therefore dogs have been helping and aiding humans for much longer. Argument 2: Dogs require more training. Though you may think this is a bad thing, it is actually good. Training a dog requires skill, focus, love, compassion, responsibility and more. Training a dog helps strengthen all these things. Also, when training a family dog, the family comes together and works hard together to make this new furry member obedient and fun. Argument 3: Dogs help you not waste food When you have leftover scraps that you can't eat but don't want to waste, a dog can eat it. Argument 4: Dogs save lives I may have already mentioned this, but here is more proof. In this article, a dog chased after a baby who was about to go in the water at the beach in drown. As quick as possible, the dog laid in front of the baby, blocking it's path. [5] Dogs are much stronger, smarter developed creatures than cats. They can save lives much more than cats. They cheer you up when you are sad. A cat comes to you when you bring out the can opener, while the dog runs to the door to greet you after a hard days work. sources: 1:http://www.slate.com... 2:http://www.petsmart.com... 3:http://www.petsmart.com... 4:http://www.historyworld.net... 5:http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Dogs are better than cats

This debate will be about house pets. I will also assume that it would be a normal family in question too. Because, "Better" implies use, which appears to be about pets in context.This is truly subjective too. Dogs might truly be better for blind people, but not a better species overall.Firstly, dogs brains are more developed than cats. When a brain has more folds, or wrinkles, it means the brain is more developed. A dog's brain has more folds than a cat's. Therefore, dogs are superior when it comes to the brain. It is higher in quality.Conceded, however, there might not be much of use a dog's smarts could give to the owner. It's not like they have this raging brain that makes them able to pick locks.Secondly, dogs can increase life expectancy. Just by walking your dog every day, you exercise, which strengthens your cardiovascular health. And when you walk your dog, you also meet other owners with their own dogs, which prevents people from being socially isolated. Also, dogs calm people down, which lowers there blood pressure. These traits have been found in cats as well. [1]Thirdly, dogs can be used to protect people. Dogs can be used as guard dogs, police dogs and more. Also, there are service dogs which are used to help a variety of people with disabilities. Dogs help out our society by protecting and aiding others using there amazing senses, there more developed brain, and their physical strength. I will address this irony with argument 1. Also, there are service dogs which are used to help a variety of people with disabilities. Dogs help out our society by protecting and aiding others using there amazing senses, there more developed brain, and their physical strength. This is true, however this would not be a reason to get a dog over a cat. Dogs also need to be trained for these task.[2]One ARGUMENT 1Cats are safer. For at least little kids. Cats are naturally smaller and therefore safer for little kids. Generally most dogs have the ability to hurt kids.ARGUEMENT 2They take up less spaceReally. You could have most any cat be a indoor cat and have things be just fine. Big dogs cant have that, and little dogs have to go outside and do it's business.[1]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...[2]http://www.guidedogs.com...
Dogs are better than cats

Before anything, I would like to clarify that this debate speaks of domestic dogs and cats. This debate will not involve anime cats, or lions, or wolves etc. Better: "Greater in excellence or higher in quality." http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Firstly, dogs brains are more developed than cats. When a brain has more folds, or wrinkles, it means the brain is more developed. A dog's brain has more folds than a cat's. Therefore, dogs are superior when it comes to the brain. It is higher in quality. http://thenaturalworld1.blogspot.ca... Secondly, dogs can increase life expectancy. Just by walking your dog every day, you exercise, which strengthens your cardiovascular health. And when you walk your dog, you also meet other owners with their own dogs, which prevents people from being socially isolated. Also, dogs calm people down, which lowers there blood pressure. http://dogcare.dailypuppy.com... Thirdly, dogs can be used to protect people. Dogs can be used as guard dogs, police dogs and more. Also, there are service dogs which are used to help a variety of people with disabilities. Dogs help out our society by protecting and aiding others using there amazing senses, there more developed brain, and their physical strength.
Dogs are better than cats

Con: Con has explained 2 general points explaining how cats are safer, and take up less space. Furthermore, Con has rebutted various points given by pro. Con explained how cats are cheaper.Which make them better in some cases. He concedes this.Pro: Pro explained various points on why dogs are better than cats. Dogs are safe, friendly This is true, but I explained Cats can be friendly, just like dogs can be friendly.and protective. They can be trained to do a variety of jobs, from a family pet to a dog in the K9 force. Dogs come in all shapes and sizes, to adapt to all lifestyles. Dogs can promote hard work, and love.K9 is irrelevant in context.Con has not explained how cats are better or equal to dogs. Con mentioned a variety or rebuttals, however a big part of these were sarcastic and irrelevant. But there were also good points by Con that made it difficult to rebuttal. Both sides shared there points, however pro explained more on why dogs are better. This was a fun fruitful debate, and I thank Con for investing their time into this debate.I dont need to. All I needed to explain that Cats and Dogs are Apples and Oranges. One is not "better". They are equal. If you hate cats, dogs would be a better choice. If you hatee dogs, cats are a better choice. And because of this, I win.Vote NightCats
Dogs are better than cats

First of all, I would like to point out that Con has not mentioned how cats are equal to dogs, or better. Con has not mentioned any arguments that lead to proving that cats are equal, or better than dogs. Rebuttals: "Also, walking a dog requires a leash, which cost about $15, however, the are some collars needed, so the price generally stays the same" Dog leashes are actually quite cheap, even a collar and a leash combined is cheap. [1][2]. Also with good training, a dog can learn to go on walks without a leash or a collar, removing the need for these items. "Cats can't do this?" This rebuttal is related to one of my previous arguments. Cats can adapt to change much faster than a cat if you looked at my previous link relating to my argument. Now I would like to summarize both sides of the debate. Con: Con has explained 2 general points explaining how cats are safer, and take up less space. Furthermore, Con has rebutted various points given by pro. Con explained how cats are cheaper. Pro: Pro explained various points on why dogs are better than cats. Dogs are safe, friendly and protective. They can be trained to do a variety of jobs, from a family pet to a dog in the K9 force. Dogs come in all shapes and sizes, to adapt to all lifestyles. Dogs can promote hard work, and love. Con has not explained how cats are better or equal to dogs. Con mentioned a variety or rebuttals, however a big part of these were sarcastic and irrelevant. But there were also good points by Con that made it difficult to rebuttal. Both sides shared there points, however pro explained more on why dogs are better. This was a fun fruitful debate, and I thank Con for investing their time into this debate. Vote pro! Sources: 1.http://www.petsmart.com... 2.http://www.petsmart.com...
Dogs are better than cats

Con has mentioned many generalizations as well. For example " Generally most dogs have the ability to hurt kids."Furthermore, Con has not proved cats are better than dogs either. Con has only included rebuttals, and 2 generalized arguments. Also, most of Con's rebuttals were irrelevant. I am having trouble seeing how "...Leftovers?" is a rebuttal.You have the BoP. You think dogs are BETTER then cats. If the voters find that cats are equal as pets to dogs, I win because of how the debate is worded. I don't need to make arguments. A litter box cost even more than what you call a "rug". [1] In a litter box, you would clean and scoop it when you get rid of the cat's solids. On a dog pad, you would pick it up with a plastic bag, just like you would in a litter box. A litter box would ad odour to the house, since you wouldn't pick it up right away.Also, walking a dog requires a leash, which cost about $15, however, the are some collars needed, so the price generally stays the same[3]Actually, litter smells quite nice for what it's job is.And litter boxes are not that expensive. Remember the price of the "rug"?Well for $30 you ca get THIS: [1]Not cheap enough? Try under $10 [2]Cat food is cheaper then dog food too.[4]Litter is about $10 for 20lbs[5] Also dog's tell you, or in other words bark after they do their business, so you can dispose of it right away. Cat's usually don't. Eh. The cat owning voters would vouch to me that cat litter, when used right, does its job. Dogs can adapt to the current situation much better and faster than a cat. [2] They can quickly, efficiently realize what is happening, and hat they should or shouldn't do.Cats can't do this? This is also shown in the article about the dog saving the baby I have mentioned earlier. They also adapt to a new house for example. They quickly observe and smell the house, and adapt to their new home. Cats do this. All the time. After training a dog, they start to listen and become very obedient. [3] You have control over their actions. Therefore if they are doing something wrong, you have control to stop them, unlike cats. Cats are difficult to train, and they usually scratch walls and curtains, unless you buy a scratching pole which cost a lot of money. Also, if the cat ruins the pole, you need to buy another one. These cost a lot of money. A good one is already almost 200$!Declawed cats. Now, dogs in SOME situations might be better then cats, but cats in others are the better choice. It would be foolish and silly to say dogs are 'better'. They are not. Cats are not better. It is all subjective.For example, a old lady might prefer the relative inactive of a cat. That would be the better choice.Thanks for your time.[1] http://www.chewy.com... [2]http://www.target.com... [3]http://www.target.com... [4] http://www.walmart.com... [5]http://www.walmart.com...
Wesley Snipes: Not Guilty!

I conced that my opponent is correct about "jury nullification". Nevertheless, it is not, as he claims, a panacea to all that ills the country. There can be negative aspects of it as well. For example, in the south, white juries ignored the law, both Constitutional (13th, 14th, and 15th amendments) and federal statue (the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and '75) in order to disenfranchise the blacks. Jury nullification, like every other type of check in America, must also have its checks and balances. In addition, my opponent claims that I said that the process of making a Constitutional amendment is by direct democracy. I never said such a thing, I said that the process was by indirect democracy, and I quote: "My opponent said that the people did not vote on the constitutional amendments, and they don't--directly."-myself, round 2. In addition, my opponent has raised the fact that neither blacks, due to the aforementioned disenfranchisement, or women had the right to vote on the 16th amendment. They didn't, that is historical fact, but they never voted for the Constitution either. Why is the Constitution not an example of tyranny that must be altered or abolished? Because, after blacks and women got the right to vote, they did not vote against it. Instead, they accepted the Constitution, just as they accepted all the amendments (including the 16th) to the Constitution. In his whole argument, my opponent has never cited why, if the 16th amendment is an example of governmental tyranny, it still exists in this nation, which hates tyranny. Why, clsmooth, has the populace not overthrown the 16th amendment through the act of jury nullification, or other means? For better or for worse, the people of the United States have accepted that the government has the right to tax their income. There has been no pattern of "not guilty's" during tax evasion trials. Jury nullification work both ways, if the juries begin to, on the whole, ignore a law, they have effectively nullified it; if they do not ignore the law, they have effectively given the law their stamp of approval. In closing, I would like to say that I do not support the income tax. I do however, support the people, and their Constitutional right, whether through elections or jury nullification, to change or keep the law. My argument, contrary to what my opponent says, has not been an endorsement of the income tax or judicial tyranny. It has been an argument for Constitutional law and the democratic processes set out in the Constitution. I am not a liberal historical revisionist--I am a conservative that believes in the rule of law that the Constitution guarantees to the people, and the ability of the people to change or alter that law through a democratic process.
Wesley Snipes: Not Guilty!

First off, constitutional amendments must first be passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. If that occurs, then they must be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures. This in no way implies the type of "direct democracy" my opponent is talking about -- especially considering people did not vote for their U.S. senators at the time the Sixteenth was passed, AND women could not vote AND blacks were effectively barred the vote in the South (where most blacks were). So my opponent's "democracy" justification is that the elected representatives of white males, through several levels of separation, passed an amendment that no one in nearly a hundred years has had a say on. That's democracy? "If I am on a jury, and I disagree with the constitutionality of a law, does that mean I have the ability to just ignore the law in making my decision?" YES. That IS the law. How does following the law (jury nullification IS legal) equate to a breakdown in law and order? No, jury nullification is a check on tyranny, and ensures that elected officials don't run roughshod over legitimate law and order. My opponent says "Being on a jury is not to exercise judicial review," but he is WRONG. Here is what John Jay -- one of the authors of the Federalist Papers (with Madison and Hamilton) and the first Supreme Court Chief Justice had to say about jury nullification: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. . . you [juries] HAVE A RIGHT TO TAKE IT UPON YOURSELVES TO JUDGE BOTH, AND TO DETERMINE THE LAW as well as the fact in controversy." (Source: http://www.maxexchange.com...) Jury nullification is the law, and it is part of the original intent. Attempts to smear it are liberal revisionism. Our founding fathers went to war to secede from the British Empire over taxes far less onerous than those being applied today. They would have NEVER accepted an income tax or the judicial tyranny that my opponent endorses. There's a reason a constitutional amendment was needed to tax incomes -- the framers knew it was the ultimate instrument of totalitarianism. As stated before, the income tax serves primarily to give backing to the otherwise worthless Federal Reserve Notes that have been unconstitutionally declared legal tender. The elites in Washington are unresponsive to the people's demands for a sound economy and individual liberty, and indeed, the government has become destructive to those ends. Therefore, it is the purpose of the people to alter or abolish the government, and the most peaceful method for doing so is jury nullification of income-tax laws.
Wesley Snipes: Not Guilty!

My opponent said that the people did not vote on the constitutional amendments, and they don't--directly. They vote through Congress. Congress, and specifically, the House of Representatives, is the voice of the people. Constitutionally, the Congress represents the will of the people and all the laws that are passed by the Congress are done so through the consent of the people. If the people don't like what their Congressman or woman is doing, they can remove him or her come election year. To say that the people did not have a say in the amendment process is to completely ignore the special relationship between the people and their representative. The relationship is similar to that of a lawyer and his client, the lawyer is the one who speaks, but he speaks for the client, and it is understood that what he says and does is in the interest of his client. In addition, my opponent claims that "jury nullification" is a proper remedy for unconstitutional laws and regulations. The remedy, however, ignores the constituional laws and principles that keep order in this nation. Indeed, what my opponent advocates is the entire break down of law and order. If I am on a jury, and I disagree with the constitutionality of a law, does that mean I have the ability to just ignore the law in making my decision? Being on a jury is not to exercise judicial review. Being on a jury is to impartially weigh the evidence about an offense against a particular law, and decide whether or not the defendant is guilty of breaking the law--as it stands. America is not a pure democracy, but it is a democratic republic. The people are, ultimately, in charge. In order to keep order, to keep liberty, We the People, set up the Constitution of the United States, which binds us, contractually, to certain rules and regulations on how and when the laws are to be change, and how and when the people are to flex their political muscle. Once we lose sight of this important concept, and seek to alter the law in ways not set out in the Constitution, this country will disintegrate into anarchy.