BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All people should expect to live an equal life.

'Equal is referring to livestyle, wage, and happiness.' This is not an argument, but a definition. I apologize for any misunderstanding. I understand that you would like to modify this to mean equal rights. However, then the debate would be, "All people shoud expect to have equal rights." Depending on what my opponent decides, this could be a debate over whether should live equal lives or whether they could live equal lives. 'Could': Two things make people's lives different: 1. Decisions 2. Circumstances beyond one's control Even if treated the same, people will not turn out the same way. Decision is what makes us different. Our decisions can cause people to live different lifestyles. One can decide whether or not to smoke, and the result will be either a shorter or a longer life. One can choose whether or not to pursue education, and the result would be a change in earnings. However, besides decisions, circumstances beyond one's control also influence lifestyle. A mental disability could influence one's ability to pursue education or participate in a working society. A natural disaster could injure a person or damage his/her property. This could lead to a difference in lifestyle. In addition, the luck of which country one is born in can determine one's potential in lifestyle. Therefore, it is impossible for everyone to live an equal life. 'Should': If everyone lived equal lives despite their actions, then there would be lawlessness. People would not be responsible for their actions and any attempts to hold one responsible would lead them to live an 'unequal' life. Depending on how my opponent continues this debate, I will modify my arguments.
All people should expect to live an equal life.

now to start off, equality, my friends, is not based on the lifestyle, wage etc. thing that my foolish opponent is talking about. equality does not mean that we should be living the same life, having the same wage.... but it is having the same rights with one another, no matter how different we are from the another. You couldnt expect each and every person living the same boring life everyday because we were created by God unique. It might be that a classmate of you might be dumb and you are smart, or he is rich and you are poor. But this doesnt change anything cause we are under one law, enjoy the same rights. Im gonna present my points in the next round. That's all for now. I'll wait for mr. smartypants's rebuttal....
Dogs and Cats Are Superior Than Any Other Living Animals

_____ My opponent has ignored much of my arguments in the last round so please extend those arguments. My opponent says I ignore his question "why do dogs and cats attack humans if they are naturally our friends. " I did not ignore him. I have easily proved that dogs and cats are naturally our friends, but of course some of them are going to be different. My opponent seems to think that all dogs and cats attack humans. The majority do not. //Because I believe that the only chance that dogs and cats could stand out from other animals and claim superior than others is when they are naturally our mate. // I think the above quote just about won me the debate. I have proved that they are naturally our mate. My opponent seems to think they are not, for the sole reason that some of them aren't. My opponent has failed to bring up a single animal that is more of mans friend than dogs and cats. I can remember him saying rabbits, horses, and cows. My opponent asks me to imagine a scenario where a dog attacks me. He thinks that because I think being ferocious is a factor of superiority, that means I should give the dog a nice warm hug. When in this whole debate did I say that dogs and cats should attack humans? The lion is the so called "king of the jungle" for the reasons that he is feared by other beasts because of his fearsome nature. This obviously makes him superior to the other animals of the jungle. The same is with dogs and cats. //Therefore through out this debate I have one and only one argument, they are not superior because they are like the other wild animals, sometime could harm our safety, betray us, not understand us, causing trauma. //My opponent has made other arguments but it appears he has dropped them. Viewers please consider all of my opponents other arguments dropped. In the same round my opponent says there are other animals more physically impressive than dogs and cats. I ask the viewers to consider this argument dropped as well. //Vote Pro! As our world need justice, and our animals need justice! All mammals are created equal! // First observation is that I am pro. But I'm sure my opponent did not mean to tell the voters to vote for me so I assume this is a mistake. Second this makes no sense, as justice doesn't have anything to do with this debate. Overview:My opponent has ignored many of my arguments, especially from the last round. My opponent has declared that he has dropped all of his arguments except for one. My opponents sole argument that remains, is actually one reason why dogs and cats are superior. Thus his only argument does not stand, and actually works for me. My opponent refutes himself in the last round and ignores the fact when I point it out. I have used my opponents arguments against him, including the only one he didn't drop. I have shown that dogs and cats possess many factors that contribute to their superiority. My opponents only argument is not an argument thus I urge a pro vote.
Dogs and Cats Are Superior Than Any Other Living Animals

My opponent has made a fail attempt of copying my avatar. To make this easier I will give each gorilla a name. My opponents gorilla we will call Wesley , my gorilla we will call Leo. My avatar is clearly the better avatar for the following reasons. 1. Now Wesley, we see, is smoking a cigar. Leo is smoking a cigarette. Cigarettes clearly fit the style that gorillas are expected to attain. If Wesley here does not even know what is acceptable in gorilla society we must deduce that he has herpes. For what other possible explanation could there be, I must ask? 2. My gorilla (Leo ) is holding his cigarette in a much more chill way than my opponents gorilla is. As you can see Wesley's cigar is just sitting on the edge of his mouth in an awkward hanging position. This, along with his overly serious expression, makes him look grouchy and boring. Like some strict high school principle. While Leo fits the image of a drug hyped hippie. (Obviously the fad. ) 3. My opponents gorilla is wearing a suite. Mine is completely naked. Naked is the new cool! Wesley here needs to get in style like my nude dude gorilla. Conclusion: In all of my contentions we see that cons gorilla is out of style, has a bad choice in what too smoke, does not know how to hold his cigars, clearly has a bad choice in clothes, and has herpes. For these reasons we must conclude, Wesley is a child molester.
Dogs and Cats Are Superior Than Any Other Living Animals

//i absolutely see no reason why dogs and cats get so much more respect than cows.// My opponent gives no reason as too why cows should earn mans respect more than dogs and cats. However dogs and cats have a natural appeal towards humans as pets. In fact statistics show 57% of American households today own either a dog or cat.[1] It is also quite common to see dogs and cats staring in movies more than other animals. //i respect the individuals which help disable humans and those which show a unbelievable loyalty to its owner. but what about those individuals who hunt human down and eat them afterwards.//I am confused as to what individuals disable humans and as to why my opponent respects them. Disabled is usually used as a negative word so I ask my opponent to elaborate more in the next round. Second I assume my opponent is saying dogs and cats hunt humans down and eat them afterwords and that is why they are not superior. Being ferocious does not mean they are not superior, on the contrary it means they are more superior than other animals because they are able to fight off their enemies as well as being feared. //so my argument is, dont every tell me the crap like "dogs are humans friends"//Well first of all that is not an argument. That is an imperative sentence. Second, compared to other animals dogs and cats are very much humans friends. They are naturally loyal, smart, trusting, and friendly. There are not many animals that possess these attributes as much as dogs and cats do. //it is because we trained them which made them kinda educated.//This actually is one reason why dogs are superior. If you take 5 kids and gave them a good education, then compare them to 5 other kids who received no education the first 5 would be superior to the other 5. Dogs are used in therapy for Alzheimer's disease and in clinical settings as comfort for the terminally ill.[2] In a test it was found that dogs were able to pick up on what humans were trying to convey much better than other species including chimpanzees. [3] I hand it back to con. [1] http://www.petfinder.com...[2] http://animals.howstuffworks.com... [3] http://articles.cnn.com... [4] http://green-buzz.net...
Dogs and Cats Are Superior Than Any Other Living Animals

I have a 10 years old Yorkshire Terrier. It is so cute, also very lazy. I sometimes give it food from my own plate for instance i always cooked an additional piece of lamb chop for it while i was having mine. i give it a bath every week and i always clean its feet after we walked in the streets before we enter the house because the house has a fine timber floor and i dont want it to get dirty. i buy the nest dog food for it and it seems very healthy and happy. we play game sometimes. forgot to mention i have a turtle and i let it to stay in one of my ceremic pot. my dog usually play with the turtle too by bashing its shell so the turtle will fall off the edge while its trying to climb against the edge of the pot and come out. i consider my dog is one of the happiest dogs on earth. however, despite the scientific evidence because i am not a vet or biological professor. simply in terms of social relationship and moral value, i absolutely see no reason why dogs and cats get so much more respect than cows. i respect the individuals which help disable humans and those which show a unbelievable loyalty to its owner. but what about those individuals who hunt human down and eat them afterwards. so my argument is, dont every tell me the crap like "dogs are humans friends" my opinion is that it all depends on how we human train them. if it is a domesticated dog it is highly unlikely to harm any person. but what if it is a wild dog. and it think wild dog is not considered as our human's friend before it has been trained. a wild dog is as brutal as the wild wolf, they both dangerous to humans safety. therefore, come back to my debate topic now. i dont think dogs and cats are naturally superior than other animals like cows and sheep and horse. we think they are superior is because we choose them to be. you can also see wild lions and monkeys performing circus and kangeroos starring as a film character. how will you argue that they are not beneficial to our human's favor. in some countries like Vietnam and Laos, farmers use cows to grow rice because the modern machine sometimes cant work in those terrain and whether. I dare to say those Vietnam farmers have built a close friendship with their cows than dogs. everyone has their own friends and stories. it just couldnt convince me that dogs and cats are naturally made to be our humans friends and naturally superior than other animals. it is because we trained them which made them kinda educated.
Entertain young Muslims to stop Isis recruiters for example using video games

Overall, just because two things are similar or have the same qualities doesn't mean they are the same, or should be treated the same. Although not completely different, gangs and Isis have no clear link - and any evidence found to link them together has unfortunately never been strong enough to support this idea. Then again it is a matter of opinion, there is no wrong or right answer to this. However, what I see as a best fit is to educate and give all youth adequate housing early on from the start of their life to prevent gangs, I could go on about how poverty and poor areas of this world make this almost impossible to do. but it would be never ending. Drugs, crime, poverty and so on have a domino effect on gangs and terrorism and the world we know today.
Entertain young Muslims to stop Isis recruiters for example using video games

The information may be a little off because it was in 2011 and I treating Isis like gangs because there similar excluding mass killings which Isis does. "Opportunity to make money, thrill seeking, protection from bullies, desire for prestige, and a chance to belong are the main reasons we see people join gangs"-by you. Its true but I'm asking myself if my reason is good and valid. I'm not saying gangs are Isis i'm saying they're targeting method is similar. They both use social media and target similar people. I made this point in the last round. I'm saying its a point that can be the start of finishing Isis,
Entertain young Muslims to stop Isis recruiters for example using video games

Only 14 percent of teens are in gangs and the average age for a gang member is 17 to 18 years old, so whilst keeping them entertained/ not bored may help and prevent gangs; will sport and video games really work on youth of that age ? Opportunity to make money, thrill seeking, protection from bullies, desire for prestige, and a chance to belong are the main reasons we see people join gangs. very very few gangs are linked to Isis, if not at all. Gangs only cause problems in the area they are in and nothing they do is ever as extreme as some of the things Isis do.
Entertain young Muslims to stop Isis recruiters for example using video games

Clubs, activities and sport are available in a lots of places but not in small rural areas. Have you ever had that feeling that you don't want to live but just skip a couple years. Its happened to me and sometimes you what to spice up your life which can be good some people enter sports but also people enter drugs and gangs. Underage people who join gangs are about 35% in 2011. Gangs can be similar then Isis for couple reason. Your family, religion and friends affect it. People who join gangs aren't rich. People would join gangs are underage. Which this is how Isis gets its new members young people who are board and what to try something new. Just think how people live there. There is not much gaming or TV. All you have is friends and doing dumb stuff. Over there there isn't much to do with a war. Which lead to boardom which leads to mistakes. People in small cities have a high heroin overdose problem. There reason the have a high overdose problem is because there isn't much to do in small cities and they try chasing the dragon.
Entertain young Muslims to stop Isis recruiters for example using video games

Clubs, activities and sport are available almost everywhere you go for youth why do we need more ? . It seems like the "in" thing to do these days for teenagers is to say goodbye to family, fly out to Istanbul, and embark on a long trek to Syria to join ISIS, the latest terror group drawing international headlines: I don't believe any of these teens go because they are bored. However, if 'entertaining' young muslims does indeed lower the chances of them joining Isis then where are these video games going to come from ? It is a parents job to prevent their child from joining.
National Health Care

Thanks to my opponent for a great debate with many good ideas. Now onto my conclusion. In conclusion, socialized medicine, by means of the government providing health care to all is a major threat to our country. National health care drives out doctors, encourages unhealthy lifestyles, and endangers the lives of those who need it most. In addition, national health care will only further increase our never-ending debt, driving us further and further down a road we are not prepared for. It may seem easy to readily compare France and the United States about how much each spends on health care and the amount of satisfaction, but the truth is our health care system can not easily be compared to that of many socialized countries, such as France, because the population difference is so great. Finally, I believe that national health care is just one more step towards socialism and away from capitalism. Capitalism is the very way we run our country and is what allows us to remain the worlds best economy, and runs on the idea that you must work hard to get what you want, and have things provided to you by the government. Once again, thanks to my opponent for a great debate.
National Health Care

For the purposes of this debate, I will be advocating for an American system of nationalized health care. I want to stipulate that this is not a debate specifically about the recently passed piece of legislation referred to by many republicans as Obamacare. Nor is this a debate about Romneycare. This is a debate about "National Health Care. " To avoid a semantic argument I think it's also prudent to establish what we mean by "National Health Care. " For the purposes of this debate, I propose that "National Health Care" and "Universal Health Care" be interchangeable -where both mean the implementation of a system whereby health care is provided to a majority of citizens by private or non-private means as a result of governmental action.
There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage

Topic: There are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage will be understood as the union of two individuals of the same gender in a legally recognized ceremony with all the benefits found in heterosexual marriage. A compelling reason is defined in terms of strict scrutiny, as used by the Supreme Court of the United States. Time: 3 days between posts. If either side needs extra time, he may ask his opponent to wait out his time. Burden of Proof: Both sides share the BOP. Pro must show that there are no compelling reasons for the state to legislate in favor of same-sex marriage, and Con must show that there are. Rounds:1. Terms/acceptance2. Opening Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Final rebuttals/conclusionWhat This Debate is NOT Over:1. This is NOT about whether homosexual acts are morally permissible.2. This is NOT about what a religion understands marriage to be.
something you do not judge to be imoral is not illegal or imoral

It looks like my opponent has plagiarized entire discussions from different websites. Not only that, he has given no credit to any of these sites. I will still respond to the arguments of others, however I do think those viewing should factor in that Pro has copy and pasted 90% of his final argument. I am also overlooking the fact that Pro decided to change his statement from "something you do not judge to be immoral is not illegal" to "something you do not judge to be immoral should not be illegal. "What I'm arguing is that something you do not judge to immoral i.e sacrifice or not being able to determine moral right from morale wrong should not be illegal but on this society one can argueI nsanity Defense" Pro fails to realize that individual morality does not have any impact on the legal system. A plea for insanity is not taken into account simply because the individual's morals differ from society. Differing viewpoints on morality is by no means evidence of a potential mental illness or insanity. If it can be proven that the defendant had criminal intent than it would follow that the individual was guilty and well aware of the crime they had committed. I have provided in my previous argument the types of actions made by those who fit the criteria. The majority of states, the burden is placed on the defendant, who must prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Only in few minority states is the BOP placed on the prosecutor. Yes, the final decision is made by the jury however this is only after a mental health professional or psychologist has provided testimony. [1] This falls back on the motives of the defendant, the method of act, and then finally the reaction of the individual upon apprehension. Even those diagnosed with a mental illness have some understanding of morality. I suggest that Pro takes the time to read the multiple tests done by Eric Mandelbaum, David Ripley, and Felipe De Brigard. To summarize the tests conducted. They gave several scenarios (to those suffering from neurological and psychological disorders) of people committing acts recognized by the DSM-lV to be attributed to mental illness. They did not need to be specific as to which type of mental illness in each scenario however the conclusions of the exam lead to the fact that each participant (who suffered from a mental illness) recognized that those individuals held some form of moral responsibility. [2] I have responded to all of Pro's significant statements and have made successful refutations to his case for innocence and insanity. I would like to thank those who take the time to view this debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com...
something you do not judge to be imoral is not illegal or imoral

I will begin with the definition of mens rea, and then follow with my rebuttal to Con's argument. Mens Rea: Latin for a guilty mind, or criminal intent in committing the act. Whispering in class: During a lecture in class two students are whispering back and forth and passing notes as a means of communication to reduce the chances of getting caught by their teacher. Prior to passing the note or engaging further into conversation quick glances and shifting eyes scan the room to ensure that no one is listening or watching them. There are two consequences to this scenario. 1.The students are caught either by a fellow student or even worse the teacher. 2.They are not caught and all messages are passed to each other successfully. No matter what the consequences the two students are aware of the rules and what they must do to avoid being caught breaking them. The same can be applied to those who commit crimes. Forensic Psychiatrists are able to examine those accused to determine whether they understand what they did was right or wrong. Wearing gloves or a mask or giving a false alibi or name are all clear and obvious indicators of recognizing the criminal act being committed. Also suspects who flee the scene of a crime or make attempts to cover up evidence and even lie to the police appreciate that what they are doing is wrong. Criminals are even capable of being very manipulative and may feign mental illness think they will escape going to prison and find a cozy place an institution. [1] Simply because one pleads insanity does not get them off the hook. If it had, several prolific murders and convicts would have been placed in an institution and possibly released back into society where they certainly do not belong. Individuals such as John Evander Couey who kidnapped, raped, murdered and buried a nine-year-old girl made this attempt. He lied and stated that he suffered years of mental abuse and stated he only had an IQ of 70. Couey however rated a 78 IQ which above the considered level of retarded. Ted Bundy made the insanity plea as well. He did suffer from acute "shyness" which presented itself socially awkward however he still did have many friends (was considered an attractive and smart individual) and suffered from no physical or mental abuse. He too made several attempts to evade authorities which added more weight to the fact that he knew very well what he was doing was wrong. [2] It is still unclear what Con is actually arguing, I hope the his next response offers a more clear and concise rebuttal. I have given several reasons as to why murder is wrong regardless of an individuals moral code. I have also responded to the "insanity plea" which does not necessarily mean the individual is innocent. [1] http://www.enotes.com... [2] http://crime.about.com...