BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Will Lose this Debate

Why I will lose this debate-I have a mustache and beard at the same timeNobody has a mustache and beard at the same time. Except for Satan's great right-hand man...who is me. Because I am Satan's right-hand man, nobody will vote me because they hate me. -Terrible spellin'Ye can't read 'tis very well cuz I be controllld by a piraT, ME MATEY. Whom nevar took any spellin' classez! :( People not like bad spellin' an' yer bad grammer, so 'ey NOT gonna vote fer me cuz me gotta terrribl spellin'. Yep.-You can't even read this argument--It's in spanishUsted no puede leer esto, a menos que sepa español. O utiliza un traductor. De cualquier manera, es realmente molesto, por lo que no me va a gustar, y usted no va a votar por mí.-I commit the slippery slope fallacy.I stated in this exact debate that "because monkeys can die, I eventually will lose debates". This is a fallacy and does not work for me.-Above I falsely accused myself. People don't like false- accusers and will therefore not vote for me.-Irrelevancy fallacy--commiting fallacies don't mean that people will not vote for somebody-Not providing sources--you don't even know if "irrelevancy fallacy" is a real thingI'm attacking myself. You see, it would work well for me if I just provided arguments, but now I'm showing how they're wrong. Thus, I'm destroying myself slowly in the process and will definitely lose this debate because I got two people against me in this debate: me and my opponent.-You can't read this argument eitherWell, you can, it's just that it's insanely tiny and striken through, so you either have to zoom in or strain your eyes in order to read this font. Plus, since I crossed it out, it doesn't really exist anymore and does not do me any favor.-I plagurized, oh no! Yes. I actually plaurized. Read this:"I plagurized, oh no!" You see, I didn't cite myself in the last sentence. My opponent could possibly argue that one does not plagurize oneself, but I didn't plagurize myself. I actually plagurized 9spaceking without citing! I plagurized "me", not "myself". I plagurized 9spaceking, not "me". Therefore I will lose conduct point and possibly lose the whole debate as well! [1][1] http://www.lib.usm.edu...;Also, above is a broken link. It will certianly make me lose source points and possibly lose conduct point twice, so I definitely will lose this debate.And with a sad sigh, I give the debate to my opponent.
I Will Lose this Debate

Voters will decide the winner based on who argued better/funnier/more creative than the other and made a better case for why they should lose the debate. I know, it's mind-boggling, but to whoever accepts: please try to pretend this is a normal debate except you're trying to make it seem that the opponent is winning rather than you.Round one acceptance only.Please make this fun for both of us, don't forfeit or concede. Make actual arguments! :D
One's native language structure affects one's world view (Linguistic Relativity)

Definitions:Language: Complex system of communication used within a group of people. [1] To simplify this debate and avoid the introduction of irrelevant exceptions, we will only be talking about one's native language, or first acquired language.And to clarify further, structure of language: The rules that govern a language (e.g., its grammar.)World view/Conceptualization of world: fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point of view. [2]Resolution: The structure of a language affects the ways in which its native speakers are able to conceptualize their world.(Pro will attempt to affirm the resolution. Con will attempt to negate the resolution.)The first round of this debate will be strictly reserved for discussion of terms of debate, definitions, and acceptance.This is my fourth attempt at having this debate... Hopefully I will eventually6 find an opponent who can handle this topic.Thank you.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Dogs are better than cats

I'll refute your cases in the next round :) Low maintenance vs. High maintenance -The independent behavior of a cat trumps the dependent behavior of a dog. All dogs generally need high maintenance by their owner. Dogs need to be taken out to the bathroom on a leash. Especially if it is raining or the weather is bad you wouldn't want to take the dog out. Cats don't need to be walked. Cats on the other hand will only need to be let out the door. Unless if it is an indoor cat, they'll need a litter box but they can help them selves to that at any time they need too. Also you need to sometimes wake up to let your dog out in the middle of the night, which is a pain if you want a full nights rest. -Dogs need to be cleaned by the owner. A dog smells if not cleaned and if it is a long haired dog it will need to be brushed. Cats clean them selves with their tongue, so baths aren't necessary. Behavior -The behavior of a dog is nothing compared to a cat. When a guest arrives the dog wont treat the guest politely. The dog will bark and bark! Maybe even jump on the guest, scratching at their legs until ripped off by someone. Cats will just sit there calmly or maybe even come out to be petted, but never the cat will jump or hump the leg of the new arrival. Dogs at the dinner table are sure to beg, crying and staring. If you look away the dog might even run away with your meal! Cats wont do this. I've never met a cat that begs at the dinner table. - The loudest cat is quieter than any dog. Dogs will bark at the dumbest things. To a knock at the door, to foot steps or even just seeing you unexpectedly. Cats keep their voices to them selves. They might have the occasional hiss or meow but it wont be enough to annoy someone. The bonus that comes with a cat. -Cats are natural hunters, if a mouse/rodent enters the house the cat will surely try to catch it, like an exterminator. Cats also catch bugs. Lets say a moth enters the house. The cat will be spending all of its time to eat the moth. Which is a good thing! because who would want bugs in the house anyways? Entertainment - It isn't hard to entertain a cat. All you need is a laser pointer and you can have fun all you want! If the cat doesn't like laser pointers than you can use other alternatives, like a piece of string. Dogs don't take care of their toys. They constantly rip balls or other toys apart in the first few days. Or sometimes even in minutes! -Cats can be funny at anytime, sometimes you'll see a cat in a box and pop out quickly. Sometimes you might see a cat use its agility and jump from place to place. Affection -Nothing beats the cats purr. When a cat cuddles up and purrs it is showing that it is very happy. -Dogs just lick when excited and it gets really gross since you don't know where the dogs mouth has been.
Dogs are better than cats

Thanks for accepting! Case 1: Cats don't give love! In a recent study, cats litteraly don't give a damn about us. (1) It states when it's owner called it, it located the sound, and did nothing! this confirms the saying, "If you like cats, you give love. If you like dogs, you want love." The one thing tat is not true is that dogs give love back, but you need to love them first. (2) 1. http://nymag.com... 2. http://dogspired.com... 2. Cleaning litter boxes is worse than potty training a dog. House breaking a dog is better than a litter box. House breaking may ake several weeks, but it will make the dog go outside. (1) In a litter box they are inside and let me tell you the smell is horrible! A lot worse than picking up poo in the back yard! Cats may also go outside of their litter box to show a sign of defiance or letting you know they don't like something. 1. http://www.humanesociety.org... If the con wishes to prove me wrong, he may do so this round!
Noahs ark never happened.

Now I'm going to list the things i see make it impossible for Noah's ark story to be possibly true 1. since all the humans on board where of one race how did new races arise in 4000 thousand years? and 8 people is not enough genetic diversity 2. '"19The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind;"' So i assume you know Mount everest is the highest mountain in the world ? and since in the Bible it says that water was that high animals would either die because of Lack of Oxygen or because they froze to death 3. There would have to be 50 animals of each kind for there to be enough genetic diversity . there would be severe genetic defects 4. If there was only a few thousand pairs of kinds of animals why is there so many species right now estimates show there is roughly about 15 million species of animals so how did that happen in 4000 years 5. As the animals left the ark there was no plants and food therefore wouldn't the animals eat each other or just die out 6. There would be signs of migrations for example after leaving the ark the kangoro would travel to Australia and we found find fossils on the way 7. The Problem of Food and Water , i really dont need to explain much on this one for example 2 elephants would require 365,000 Ibs. Of Food and 36,500 gal. of water , the Girrafes are going to need 54,750 Ibs. of food , the hippos are gone need 65,700 Ibs. of food and the Lions 16,060 Ibs. of Meet and that meet is going to rott , what makes it even more incredible is that in Genesis 6:21 it says 'You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. " . 8. Most Sea Life would die , Because there would be Changing Water temperature , pressue , salt&fresh water mixing = fish die
Mormons Are Christians

I thank Con for the challenge. I only have one small correction to make to the definitions.Mormons accept the Bible as the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.[1] This is an understandable idea, as there are small contradictions in the Bible, as well as disagreement on exact translations from version to version. If Con disputes this idea, I will provide one instance each of contradiction within the Bible and disagreement between translations.[1] http://www.lds.org...
Mormons Are Christians

I wish to offer a challenge to JaxsonRaine, a competent debater and knowledgeable about the subject matter. He has been in no less than three debates regarding this, and I have decided I'd like to take a crack at debating it with him.Definitions (if he wishes, he may offer an alternate definition):Mormon -- an individual member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; Joseph Smith was the founding member of this church and they accept The Book of Mormon as an additional testament of Jesus Christ (and recognize The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrines and Covenants as Mormon Canon)Christian -- literally "Christ-like," or a follower of Christ; a Christian accepts the Bible as the inspired, infallible word of God and accepts the teachings of Christ, living their lives by the example He set.In this debate, we will examine some of the claims made by Christians and Mormons, and see if Mormonism can fit into the scope of orthodox Christianity.I look forward to Pro's response.
The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized

In conclusion I'd just like to say that the legalization of drugs in my eyes would A) Cause many less deaths if the government released an overdose warning/label B) Cause the crime rate to drop and less tax dollars to be spent on prisoners C) Increase the tax revenue the government could receive from creating/selling these drugs. Finally, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate. May the best debater win.
The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized

Thanks for sticking to the rules of no rebuttals on round 2. 1) I said there would be more space for more serious offenses, never did I say there wasn't enough space. We could in fact close down unused prison and use less tax dollars by not needing to arrest drug users. Netherlands crime rates are exceptionally lower in comparison to America, and in fact there were 19 prisons closed because of the decline and lack of crime rate in their country (http://www.nationmaster.com...) The following is a table copied and pasted from the following link: http://www.drugwarfacts.org... USA is the first number and Netherlands is the second Lifetime prevalence of marijuana use 2009 41.5% (ages 12 and up)1 25.7% (ages 15-64)2 Past year prevalence of marijuana use 2009 11.3% (ages 12 and up)1 7.0% (ages 15-64)2 Lifetime prevalence of heroin use 2009 1.5% (ages 12 and up)1 0.5% (ages 15-64)2 Prison Population Rate per 100,000 population Dec. 31 2011 (US) / Sept. 30 2012 (Netherlands) 716 3 82 3 Per capita spending on criminal justice system (in Euros) 1998 "379 4 "223 4 Homicide rate per 100,000 population 2012 4.75 0.95 As you can see, less people actually use drugs where it's legal, countering your argument. You say 9,000,000 were addicted to opiate in China, that's because it's an addictive substance which is related to heroin, how many people are addicted to tobacco here in America? 40,000,000. 2) This is why we would arrest meth and heroin users just like we do now, as I said before, more serious offenders need to be in prison. As you can see by my previous chart, the legalization of drugs did decrease crime rate in Netherlands (sticking to your example here) and as I said, the US would release a chart about how much of said drug to intake without overdose, and anyone who overdoses did not heed the warning and it is their own fault, I believe saying "Do not intake more then x grams of cocaine" would solve the death rate slightly if not majorly. 3) I do not believe this said drug should be legal, as it sounds worse then heroin. The reason I stated the fact that we would teach about drugs in school is to show that the legalization of drugs would not automatically make children want to try them. I'd like to hear your reasons that drugs such as LSD and ecstasy should be illegal.
The selling and use of all drugs should be legalized

Thank you for accepting, good luck. Resources are not required unless using a statistic. 1) I believe there should be less people in jail for use of drugs, as it is their own choice and sending them to jail for it uses up valuable tax dollars and space needed for more serious offenders. 2) I believe if you take away meth and heroin, the drugs that are pure poison, there's no need to worry about death from using drugs like ecstasy that are cut with meth, if the government were to create and sell the drugs they could make a higher amount of money and insure the safety of the people who use them. If they had a dosage level that would be maximum amount labeled around the country people would not overdose unless they didn't listen to the warnings. 3) If one was to use the drugs they'd have to be a certain age, and schools would still advertise the dangers of drugs and just because they're legal (Like alcohol) doesn't mean they're ok or good.
Capitalism is more moral than socialism

To support and verify my claim one more time: no socialist government has succeeded, and thus the idealism cannot be disputed via examples. socialism can only be regarded as an ideal, and as such is a very very Moral governing system. Socialism is in favor of the people, and factually does not put all individuals on par. Those who work are regarded as in need of being rewarded, and those who achieve deserve authority to continue economic growth. Those who have much, would only be reduced in holding to what they deserve, not to what they need. So there is no disrespect distributed to any citizen. I hope we all enjoyed this debate. It is very seldom I am given the opportunity to express myself and my sensible Christian morality.
Capitalism is more moral than socialism

wealth redistribution is not a viable debate response. when considering two parties one cannot claim on is less because of how the transition would take place. Capitalism requires an equal amount of force to enforce it's policies. Socialism cannot make the poor poorer unless the functioning country is inactive. in which case this is not a legitimate example of socialism. Socialism fails when the country is not unified. In socialism any party can choose how to run their business if they consider the well being of the populous. I suggest that to indicate this is immoral: to not allow them to be selfish and privatized whilst disregarding the general populous is an error in judgment. In socialism the laws are subject to change, and the bureaucrats can be revoked* In all logical regards, if the country were to convert into socialism, it would take a extreme effort, and could not be taken rashly, hastily or without great consideration for all parties. I think it is clear to state that regardless of the poor conduct of the wealthy populous, their property, which should become as much public domain as anything else should still be under their authority. and anyone who attempts to destroy it or remove them aught to be charged, fined, and imprisoned. * and in additions, while redistributing wealth, no money should be taken away until all earnings and holdings have been evaluated and processed rationally by a collective non biased comity that did not push for socialism, but represent the people within the country. This is to say, neither the middle class nor rich should immediately be effected, giving them time to distribute their funds appropriately, before the rich are reproved and it is given as commonly accepted knowledge the worth of their time is not equal to their capacities. meaning the evaluated value of their time, Holdings, must be revoked. or diminished (in balanced reductions of all parties) until the country is stable. These funds should not rationally be distributed to the poor, but to the municipal governments to pay for schooling and work, as well as resources and enforcement. It is clear a true socialism which ahs been given time to succeed is a clearly more moral society than a capitalist one. the question here is clear, that the transition can be a very tedious and difficult process. However, capitalism, when ravishing successful socialist government is a clearly less moral society.
Capitalism is more moral than socialism

True socialism acknowledges that a man who works hard needs reward. Capitalism rewards the man who does the least. (the boss) Socialism, protects the elderly, the youth, and the workers equally. Capitalism only protects the individuals who are of a benefit to the employer, are requires no communal contribution. Socialism does not overprice products for selfish gains. Capitalism siphons the money from the community for no communal need.
Capitalism is more moral than socialism

To start, I acknowledge the good intentions of socialism, however good intentions are not enough when dealing with people"s lives; therefore I focus on the outcomes of political philosophies rather than intentions. Additionally I recognize that Capitalism is not a perfect system, but I argue that it is a better and more moral than socialistic system. P1.Capitalism respects individual rights more than socialism. It does this by allowing individuals to decide for themselves how to run their business, what they can produce to bring to the market place and how much they want to charge for their service. Socialism in contrast allows a minority of people (bureaucrats), whom were elected by a majority to create "laws" that force individual"s to make certain decisions regarding their business, who they work for or what occupation they must work. Example: Can you understand why an individual would want to paint a painting by herself rather than paint it collectively? If so maybe then you can understand why someone might want to start a coffee shop by themselves without government planning or involvement. People own themselves, and their right to pursue their dreams should be respected regardless of what the collective majority think is best for them or their situation. P2.Socialism requires the use of force (violence) and/or coercion in order to execute its philosophy. Forcing someone to do something they do not want to do is immoral. P3.Socialism makes the poor even more poor. Consider any country or place that has unleashed socialism into their government, it always results in lower consumer consumption and less options. Detroit is a perfect example of what socialism can do to a city. It was the greatest capitalist city in the country before 1960, but after the socialist democrats took over they ran most businesses out of town and turned it into a place that resembles a 3rd world country. Consider Hong Kong that was nearly completely laissez faire capitalist, and how that economy grew to be one of the best economies in the world. P4.Socialism's wealth redistribution is theft. Citizens generally speaking do not pay taxes with a heart of charity, but rather in response to the penalty or coercion that they are threatened with by the government if they do not pay. It is not a voluntary system, so therefore it is a shakedown and then redistributed to others whom may or may not deserve it.
Capitalism is more moral than socialism

Ryan I am glad to take this challenge. A society where money talks louder than words is arguably, and so I argue that, it is less moral to be pro Capitalism than pro Socialism. In a socialist society, although the government has complete control, the same amount of natural resources are available for production and for sale, as well as to work with as there are in a capitalist society. However in a capitalist society the needs and necessities of the whole populous are over looked in favor of income profits, which are not relevant to the providing or producing of provisions for the people. In a capitalist society, the thesis is a stock market measures the success of a country, but factually the stock market is based on speculative evaluation, and does not actually take people into consideration. Justly I will gladly take up this challenge to defend socialism vs Capitalism.
Capitalism is more moral than socialism

Resolved: Capitalism is more moral than socialism Definitions: Capitalism: is a free market economic system based on private ownership and entrepreneurship. The investment of capital, and production, distribution, income, and prices are determined not by government (as in socialism) but through the operation of a competitive market where decisions are voluntary and private rather than regulated and mandated by government (see law of supply and demand). Socialism: advocates state ownership or direct control of the major means of production and distribution of goods and services. Format: Round 1: Acceptance Only Round 2: State proposition only (no rebuttal) Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Defense - Address the opponent's rebuttal Round 5: Closing statements If you haven't given this topic much thought, please do not waste time in accepting the challenge. I genuinely want a great debate here.
Capitalism VS. Communism

P1: The wrong reasons for outsource manufacturing outweighs the right reasons. P2: The system of Capitalism is not a "perfect image" as it has been portrayed. P3: For instance, in Michael Moore's film, " Capitalism: A Love Story", it shows all the problems of Capitalism. P4: In the film, it shows how Walmart have insurance against losses when a worker in the company dies. P5: The Capitalism Ideology although it is a free market for everyone, it is difficult because of widely used practices of monopoly, and monopsony in Capitalism. P6: In Capitalism, there is little rules at all because there is no government action to stop companies from the practices. P7: For these reasons, i believe communism has the superiority over capitalism