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

First of all, I would like to congratulate my opponent, you have made my first debate very fun. Now, on a more serious note, my opponent stated that they were upset at their dog when they ruined a nice pair of shoes, and they did have ever right to be upset at their dog. My dog even torn up my couch leaving just the frame and fabric and stuffing EVERYWHERE. She also chewed up my tortoise, but I still love her very much. However, I do believe it is right to punish your dog when that dog has done something naughty. That is the proper way to train a dog to do the correct things. My big reason why I believe that dogs are better then cats is because dogs help so many people with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) which is something that happens to someone after, say a terrible event. An example of PTSD would be say a veteran of WWII, let's say this veteran was on the front lines for the US and they were helping save people from concentration camps. That veteran might get PTSD because of the things that they saw while during the war. Many veterans are often granted with dogs, given to them by many charity organizations, one charity being the WWP (Wounded Warriors Project). These dogs would then help the veteran get through the traumatic event. But not just veterans get PTSD, many other people and get PTSD, such as police officers, firefighters, or just normal people. Dogs also help people with depression and disabilities. Honestly I've never seen a seeing eye cat. Also, Hundreds of rulers through history have had dogs as pets, for like a status symbol. Dogs are also very effective for being guard dogs. My littlest dogs (a 10 pound Jack Russell Terrier) is still an amazing guard dog even though he isn't big. He freaks out when I just walk down the stairs. My step-dad has had many guard dogs when he was running his shipping business. That is why I believe dogs are better then cats because they are both great companions and amazing at many other things.
Dogs are better then cats

A dog chasing a squirrel or another dog would be very entertaining for it. Most likely not for you since you would have to stop your dog from attacking another one. Most likely not for your neighbor whose garden gets trampled by your dog entertaining himself chasing a squirrel. Dogs being able to find people buried under a pile of rubble is a wonderful thing, I won't deny that. I still don't feel like they owe us that. I own a dog as well, and as much as I love him, when he ruined a very nice pair of shoes it mattered a lot. I believe I had right to be upset with him. I agree that most people do get a pet for companionship. I was only being figurative when I stated earlier that all cats require is food and water.
Dogs are better then cats

My opponent stated, "You have to take dogs for a walk." this is true however it is good to take a dog for a walk so you can get exercise.Since my opponent said that dogs chase squirrels and other dogs, that means they are also getting exercise at that same time, so in some instances you don't have to walk your dogs for they are entertaining themselves and getting exercise as well. As I stated before dogs are in the K-9 unit and sniff out drugs, they also find dead bodies under rubble. Which, now correct me if I'm wrong, but this was extremely important after the 9/11 bombings. My opponent also stated that dogs soil your furniture and ruin your clothes. This is true, however, if you are a 100% dog lover such as myself, it doesn't matter to you. Now this is my opinion, along with thousands of other people, that you get a pet for a companion to spend time with and to love and care for it, not just give it food, water, and pet it occasionally. If ya know what i mean...
Dogs are better then cats

Dogs have done some pretty useful things for us, however, I do not believe an animal's contributions to humans mean anything when determining the better pet, especially since the average family dog will do none of those things. I think cats are better because of the fact that they require far less attention. You feed a cat, you give a cat water, and you pet it occasionally. You dangle a string if it wants to play. A cat will take care of business in a box. You have to take dogs for a walk. You throw a tennis ball to a dog and it returns it to you, slimy and gross. Dogs chase squirrels and other dogs too. You have to give dogs baths. Dogs soil your furniture and ruin your clothes. Dogs run out in front of cars and get killed. Cats are kind animals, and content most of the time when they are by themselves.
Dogs are better then cats

I believe that dogs are better then cats because dogs are the ones that are 'Man's best friend'. Dogs have also been vital to our survival as a species for many reasons. One reason includes the fact that many dogs were bred as hunting dogs. Even though many breeds of dogs are strictly used for many things such as fashion shows, these dogs help people make a living and have an income on winnings. Dogs are also companions; some for the visually impaired and others just for lonely people. Dogs are also in the criminal fields, this meaning that they are used in the K-9 unit to sniff out drugs such as marijuana. Now I don't know about you, but I have never seen a cat do some of the amazing things that dogs have done in our history.
The God of the Bible is a loving God.

Rebuttals:Of all the cinematic adaptations of Christ, I find Darth Vader the most accurate. A paternal figure, he tries to convert his progeny to his side of the Force, guided by some imperial master. Those who do not convert, will be killed or punished. They will not partake in the eternal life of Heaven. Darth Vader (the Chosen One) 'wants' his son to convert to his faith as well. But, fortunately, Luke Skywalker resists him. Christians give in: they choose to bow their heads to their opaque master and in the process sacrifice their freedom. Theologically-speaking, our souls are only extensions of God. They are constituted of Ru'ach (the breathe of God) given in Genesis (1). He wants us to reject the sinful 'human' part of ourselves and embrace the part of us which is divine, which is him. This is narcissistic; he wants us to become like him, like Christ, rather than develop to be like ourselves beyond the guidelines of the Bible. He provides an eternal law and ethics by which we ought to obey and a Christian has no choice but to obey these ethics; if they go against them, they will be reprimanded and punished for it at the Parousia. Thus, they choose to obey-- out of fear and out of trust in the wisdom of their master. This is still a slavish relationship. Christians do not choose how to act: they waiver their freedom to act how they please and obey God. Now, compare this to any other authoritarian regime: the citizens obey either from fear or from belief. The dictator doesn't control their every action but rather sets up the regime by which they must conform. My description of God sending all non-believers into Hell as 'stabbing' was to tie it to the Abrahamic narrative. It may not be filicide because it would be a contradiction to state, 'souls are eternal' and that 'souls can be extinguished', but it is eternal punishment without chance of redemption or hope. It is an immolation, a sacrifice or discard of souls into the fires and lava. To argue that God has the moral high ground here, is just plainly wrong. He is no Obi Wan. He may 'hate the sin but love the sinner' (2), but that is to say that he hates what we do but loves the part of him within us. He hates everything that is human and loves all which is divine. If God is loving, he is loving of himself only and all that he produces. He hates that which makes us essentially human like sin and ethical free-thinking. Therefore, God doesn't love us: he loves himself. Those who maintain individuality will be destroyed. (1) Genesis 2:7 https://www.biblegateway.com...(2) https://www.catholic.com...
The God of the Bible is a loving God.

Thank you for the challenging questions and statements. You stated in a sentence " What kind of loving entity imposes on us a salvation we never asked for that binds our freedom and obliges us to obey him." You are anything but right. Christians do not sacrifice freedom, we just accept that we must follow him. Freedom's definition, in this case, is " the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action". (1) God does not force us to follow him or follow his laws. He does not restrain us from breaking them, but he does punish us. That punishment is not a prison. The explanation of verse 15 of revelation was incorrect. Revelation 22:15 states- "Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."( you posted the link for this) This does not have God "stabbing" and "sacrificing" non believers. This has the non-believers being thrown into a lake of fire. God does not kill them, he punishes them. God loves us for being us, but he does not love human nature. I am not human nature. If I was merely human nature, I would have committed many more sins. "God wants is for humans to act like puppets in accordance to his dogmas. " God doesn't need us, he wants us. You say that it is "lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others" or "authoritarianism", but God doesn't control everything we do. He cares for what we want. ""The LORD will watch over your coming and going both now and forevermore." (2) (1) https://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) Psalm 121:8 (NIV)
The God of the Bible is a loving God.

In response to that famous passage from John's Gospel, I have only to reconstruct the late Christopher Hitchens' position on the matter. How dare God do such a thing? What kind of loving entity imposes on us a salvation we never asked for that binds our freedom and obliges us to obey him. 'I am the way, the truth and the life' (1), sacrifice your freedom and emulate me. This isn't loving. This is an attempt to monopolise all ethics, epistemology and our very lives here...an act of supreme control. All Abraham had to do was to show that he would kill his son to gain divine assent (2); God actually went ahead and did it. And for what ends? Both paternal figureheads became highly influential after their action. Both acts required the fidelity of a lunatic to permit the death of the innocent. God killed so that a global religion could become popular, so that people would actually believe in him, impressed by his act of fanaticism. Not only is immolation of one's progeny a grotesque ask of barbarism, of human sacrifice, but it raises the question of whether this is what God does to those that he loves. If this is what God does to his children, I do not want to be one of them. And indeed, as Jesus was, we are all put to blade at the Parousia (Judgement Day): God stabs and sacrifices all non-believers on the altar simply for not renouncing their human selves (3), negating the very thing that makes them individuals, and trying to obey God's Eternal Law. Does any of this sound like God really cares for us, when all he desires is to see himself reflected? The Imago Dei (the image of God) given at Genesis (4) to man is what he encourages us to embrace: what narcissism. If he loved us for being us, he would encourage us to cultivate ourselves in the image of man. But, no, all God wants is for humans to act like puppets in accordance to his dogmas. And, Jesus' death is just rhetoric to make us buy into all this nonsense. It's the worm on the hook. God's love is not unconditional love (agape): only those who believe in Jesus as their saviour partake in the salvation of the resurrection. The condition is the total surrender of one's critical faculties and human nature, deferring to God for permission to act as we want to. This is divine authoritarianism. Or as Hitchens would say, the act of a cruel and cosmic dictator.(1) John 14:16 https://www.biblegateway.com...(2) Genesis 22 https://www.biblegateway.com...(3) Revelation 20: 15 https://www.biblegateway.com...(4) Genesis 1:27 https://www.biblegateway.com... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tell me if you found this too offensive and I will turn it down (you know, the whole suggesting that Jesus was a worm incarnate and all; it's just a metaphor to highlight the paradox of a weak God and ultimately the death of the immortal). How did Jesus' resurrection actually solve anything in the first place? How does this mystical substitution work? In Narnia, we might be inclined to call the same principle over Aslan's death, 'magic'. Anyway, over to you--
The God of the Bible is a loving God.

Thank you, fellow debater, for providing definitions of some of the terms we will be using. First of all, I do accept your definitions of love, and I do define God by those standards. I believe that God loves, as the article says "regardless of circumstances". I do define God's love as good as I define God as being good. My first argument to prove God's benevolence is that God gave his own life. He went to great pains to provide a blood sacrifice that would pay for our sins (1). God, in the form of Jesus (A human body), died and rose again to prove his love and goodness to us. The Bible's words prove this to us by stating that "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."(2) Based on this text, I believe that god does love the world, and therefore loves us. This proves God's benevolence. Romans 6:23- "For the wages of sin is death" (https://www.biblegateway.com......) John 3:16- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (https://www.biblegateway.com......)
The God of the Bible is a loving God.

Thanks to my interlocutor for the opportunity to argue against the benevolence of the God of classical theism (I assume with the theological premise granted that the Christian God exists). Firstly, I would like to challenge your definition of God's love as 'caring'; many can have a detrimental and 'constant affection' for something or someone which isn't divine or good. Therefore, 'caring' alone is insufficient in describing God's love: unless you want to characterise him as a cosmic stalker, I think you also must define God's love as good.Subsequently, I would propose the definition of love as we are using it pertains to the Greek word, 'agape' (unconditional, selfless love often characterised as divine love). https://en.wikipedia.org...If you accept this, I look forward to hearing the rest of your argument--
The God of the Bible is a loving God.

In this argument, we will be debating whether or not the god of the Christian New Testament loves the world. The Merriam-Webster definition of care is "A feeling of strong or constant affection for a person." Rules: 1. We will use The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (https://www.merriam-webster.com...) 2. We will use the NIV translation for any new testament or old testament quotations. 3. Remember that "When you are debating on Debate.org try to keep emotion out of your arguments. Debate.org is a place for fun and relaxation; not drama and stress. However tempting it may be, always refrain from using personal or general insults. It is not only rude but against the terms of service as well."(http://www.debate.org...) Please make your points without being rude.
the earth is 6000ish years old

After Alexander the Great invaded India he brought back reports of seeing a great hissing dragon living in a cave. Later Greek rulers supposedly brought dragons alive from Ethiopia.(http://www.genesispark.com...) A swimming race illustrates the simple principles involved in measuring time. This swimmer is competing in a 1,500 meter race and we have an accurate, calibrated wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the edge of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the 1,500 meter race? When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, "Starting time?" You cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Without the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible. Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 meters. And you have to check to make sure he touches the edge at the end of each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need at least two, sometimes three judges to measure the time of the race to the standard needed to enter the record books.
the earth is 6000ish years old

First off radiocarbon dating has been wrong when people have tested on rocks that they know the age of and it gave them millions of years as a result so how can we know that that rock is millions of years old. My next point is since your a Christian you know that bible says that there was no sin, death, or bloodshed before Adam sinned so therefore the dinosaurs couldn't have died before Adam sinned and maybe the dinosaurs were wiped out during the flood.
US Foreign Policy in the Middle East Undermines our National Security

My first point is that oil in the Middle East has been the cause of some major terrorist attacks. 2. My second point is that oil is a BIG part of our nation. 3. My third and final point is that our foreign policy has led to various accidents, or "Blow-backs" I would like to state that with these arguments, I see no other ballot but for that affirmative side of this resolution. Thank you.
US Foreign Policy in the Middle East Undermines our National Security

For my rebuttal, I will first tear down my opponent's points and back my points up. First of all, my opponent's argument is based solely on quotes from reporters and regular people instead of hard-core information. Where's the facts? Where do your reporters say that the current foreign policy is being undermined? My The only thing that the opening statement included was talk about the Middle East and the conflict between the countries in that region. Nothing that included information about how the Middle East affects the United States. In my oponent's conclusion, he states that since the US cannot solve the underlying source of hatred between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East, current US foregin policy is not responsible for undermining our national security. I cannot understand how the conflict between the Jews and Arabs affects the United States. Whatever those two countries have between each other is their own problem, not ours. We are not affected by their hard feelings towards each other. Now I will back up my points. My first point was that Oil in the Middle East has been the cause of some major terrorist attacks. When Middle Eastern countries are in conflict, then the war on oil causes gas prices to go up. The entire globe does NOT need gas prices to go up because the the cost of EVERYTHING will go up. One way you could say that this is undermining our national security is that our nation will continue to become more and more financially insecure. Another way you may look at it is to think that because the Midle East has their own conflicts, then our allies in the Middle East may call upon us in their time of need to help them with our their enemies. This puts OUR soldiers at risk and this also puts our taxdollars to waste. Our allies need to step up and find a way to to handle their own problems-without including us. We need our resources for our country. My third point states that the United States has practically given the Middle Eastern countries technology to bring us down. This is completely undermining our national security. By us sending a drone into the Middle Eastern countries, they captured that new technology and is using it against us. Countries in the Middle East, especially Iran, may gain access to nuclear weapons that could completely wipe us out. That is my final reason as to why the resolution is true. With these points, I see no other ballot but for the affirmative.
Five Nights at Freddy's series is good

REBUTTALS:"First, Five Nights at Freddy's series has a lot of detail into the plot. There is a lot of large things compressed into small things, like the pattern of the Animatronics' movement is related to the homicides of Chuck.E Cheese. Each of the members were murdered in one spot (for example, the bathroom) and an animatronic follows the pattern!"There is not a lot of detail in the plot. The player is left to guess so many details. The only significant details given to the player is the "Bite of 87" and that the animatronics walk around at night. The player does not know who the man is on the answering machine is. This is never explained at all. Why does there need to be a security guard for a place that has been closed down? Most importantly, the player is left to guess what is the problem with the animatronics. Why are the animatronics walking about at night time? This is never explained."There is also a tremendous amount of detail gone into the graphics and the game itself."No, there is not a lot of details gone into the game. The game's graphic is nothing special in 2015. The graphics are at best satisfactory[1][2]. The game itself is extremely poor for a PC game. It is unbecoming of the PC Master Race.[1]https://lh4.ggpht.com...[2]https://lh4.ggpht.com...ARGUMENTS:1. The Game is Basic, Too BasicThe player who is a security guard is left in one room to control the doors of that room and watch the animatronics via a camera. Why can't the player run away from the animatronics? Why can't the player fight back against the animatronics? The player can't do anything of noteworthiness except close doors and flash lights. The player can't even defend himself from being attacked by the animatronics.2. Poor FeaturesThe game has no character customization. The games lacks replay ability. Over a while, the game will become boring because it becomes taxing and repetitive. The game has no multiplayer. The game can't be modded that much either to have some great mods. The game is not worthy of being a member of the PC Master Race.The game series, Five Nights at Freddy's is not a good series at best, satisfactory.
Five Nights at Freddy's series is good

First, Five Nights at Freddy's series has a lot of detail into the plot. There is a lot of large things compressed into small things, like the pattern of the Animatronics' movement is related to the homicides of Chuck.E Cheese. Each of the members were murdered in one spot (for example, the bathroom) and an animatronic follows the pattern! There is also a tremendous amount of detail gone into the graphics and the game itself. It would be hard to make a game like that yourself, wouldn't it? Also remember, making graphics like that would at the minimum require 2 weeks to learn and 4 weeks to master. Good luck,