BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should people adopt wild animals

I would like to start the debate by wishing you good luck. I will pick this apart piece by piece. My first argument is historical. Dogs, cats, snakes, rabbits, hedgehogs, birds, etc. All at one point in history were wild. Over time these animals were bred and trained and bred and trained until eventually you get an animal that is relatively safe and domestic. This can be done if people take the necessary precautions, and are willing to keep an accurate log, regimen, and animal crop for their successor to continue immediately. This would take some time but is very possible. In that case the adoption of wild animals is not bad one, and could actually be a productive step if done right.
should people adopt wild animals

That response threw me off guard and I have to applaud you for keeping me on the defensive. My last piece will be the animals safety. This will go along with my last two and along with a new addition. 1. When animals were first being domesticated we dealt with many of the pet safety issues. Although it was not dealt with well the first time, we have evolved our technology and veterinary abilities 2. If we regulated the adoption, care, and quarantined imported and exotic animals to give them blood testing, we could reduce the assumed disease rate and emotional problems that animals can acquire coming into a new environment. 3. Animals like people may not like their roommate, but like people I have seen animals who ,with the proper techniques, can grow to a great friendship with the other animal. I really enjoyed the debate and I hope we can do it again someday.
Trees are people too.

My opponent merely repeats the resolution several times. If it is implied that these are arguments, then they become circular in reasoning, due to the proof of" "trees are people too" being "trees are people too". Why? Because "trees are people too". Since this line of argument is circular, which is a logical fallacy [1], and it is my opponent's only line of reasoning, the BoP remains unfulfilled, and thus Con wins by default.Reference[1] http://tinyurl.com...
The growth of the national debt, if not stopped, will bankrupt the nation.

Just wanted to say thank you Bigdave, for this opportunity to debate you on this matter. Since you only stated your position in round one i will do the same. You said you will be pro on this matter by saying the national debt is going to make America broke. So, that leave me with being con. I will argue why the national debt will NOT make America broke, and why it just a number so politician to make policy for the added debt or to decrease the national debt. I can see you change 3 rounds to 5 rounds. Have to say i like the move. So, i guess round 2 to round 5 will be just debating, And rebutted. So, i guess lets get started then.... Good luck to you.
Anarchy is the true means of liberty

I believe that only through anarchy will people be free. I believe that only through the abolition of the state and the abolition of capitalism will the people have true liberty and be free from oppression.This is an experimental debate as I have just began informing myself about anarchism and I will see how it goes from there.My opponent will oppose the abolition of the state and/or the abolition of capitalism as the means of liberty to the people.Let's see how this goes http://www.google.com......
Anarchy is the true means of liberty

I like to go through some of her points quickly. PRO writes; "These people would pick a size of land they want and live under it. It'll start out as a small land where there is a small population. Then it can slowly grow bigger if more people want to live under this land. I'm a little confused at your question. I don't really know how to answer this. " This could not work since the land would still be under government rule. You can't just declare yourself a nation, specially if you are very small. PRO wrote; "These communities that I mentioned are Anarchist regimes that are living the way that most Anarchists advocate. They are self-sufficient, independent from the government, and live in equality. I feel that these communities are definitely on the path to liberation, as they coexist in peace without the government constantly examining them, questioning them, oppressing them, discriminating them, manipulating them, enslaving them, robbing them, stalking them, killing them, deluding them and imprisioning them. The flaws that Anarchy has can be fixed or figured out in time. Everyone in the community is going to figure out what they want to do and will share ideas. The inconveniences in Anarchy are completely minor compared to the disgraces that the Government and Capitalism have to offer. " All of the communities you listed share one common thing. They are proclaimed independent, but they are still under government rule. They are all communities in a country run by a government, and because of this, they have encountered themselves in many troubles dealing with the government. From the information I read, Freetown Christiania seems to be the most successful one at dealing with the government in order to continued to be allowed to exist. So in short, you really didn't list any real anarchist states, since they were under government rule, and its existence depended on the government willingness to exist. If they decided on any rules that broke any national law, they would quickly had ceased to exist. So whatever they decided upon had to take those considerations into account. Since I'm the last to go, I'll just end it here, and not take too much advantage over this, as admire my opponents intentions, and feel it be unfair to make any additional points other than the ones we already had in motion. Thanks again Yarely, it was a pleasure debating with you. Take care.
Sea lions are seals

My opponent has merely copy/pasted the contents of two articles. My opponent hasn't presented any argument. However, the implicit claim here is that these 2 sources are inconsistent with and discredit my own sources. They do not. First, I would like to address the usage of "seal" within my opponent's first source: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov... It's unclear who authored the article. However, it's a .gov source. So, it is certainly a credible source. The author is using the word "seal" as short hand for "true seal". Within academia, and especially among marine scientists, there is a tendency to do this perhaps for brevity's sake. In response to Con's article, I offer a competing .gov article which uses more appropriate terminology - http://www.nps.gov... This source appropriately refers to true seals. It also corroborates my assertion about the short hand method of referring to true seals when it says that "true seals are also known as earless seals, or simply 'seals'." Sea lions are not true seals - They are eared seals. However, whether or not sea lions are true seals is not the issue here. The issue is whether or not sea lions are seals, and they are. One must not allow the short hand method of referring to true seals lead him to incorrectly conclude that sea lions are not seals. Con offers another article: http://nmlc.org... This source is not authoritative. It is from a blog and contains significant errors, e.g.: "Sea lions include animals referred to as 'fur seals.' " No, I'm afraid that fur seals are not sea lions. Sea lions are of the subfamily otariinae [ https://en.wikipedia.org... ], while fur seals are of the subfamily arctocephalinae. http://a-z-animals.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
Sea lions are seals

Hello, Today I accepted this debate.But I also like saying my definition in my debates. Pro did not write his definition.Definiton:Sea lion: a large seal that lives near coasts in the Pacific Ocean.Seal: any of numerous carnivorous marine mammals (families Phocidae and Otariidae) that live chiefly in cold regions and have limbs modified into webbed flippers adapted primarily to swimming;especially : a fur seal or hair seal as opposed to a sea lion. Thank you
Sea lions are seals

RebuttalsI did not write a source of http://www.nps.gov...;Also on your definition of seal, it is a different definition of what I found of sea lionSea lion= An eared seal occurring mainly on Pacific coasts, the large male of which has a mane on the neck and shoulders. Five genera and species in the family Otariidae Also for my reason we... We urge you to vote for CON!!!
Agnostics are just atheists without balls.

1) Your first argument is what I call a smartace remark. You know exactly what I mean by "without balls" so drop that argument. 2)< > That made no sense. If you meant "that doesn't make all Muslim people Christian" then you're playing the "everyone has the rights to their own views" card. That's not what this debate is about. I didn't say "no one should be an agnostic", I just said what I think of agnostics. <> Exactly, so since no one is 100% sure, we're all agnostics. Atheist doesn't mean we don't believe in God, it means we have no religion. A theist A as in none (e.g. asexual) theist comes from the word theism, short for religion. (e.g. theology The term agnostic is for those who don't want to sound like bad people by saying "I'm an atheist", because atheists are discriminated 10000000% more than agnostics.
Agnostics are just atheists without balls.

I disagree for the following reasons; 1- Your proposition assumes that A. Agnostics have no testicles B. Atheists have testicles Both assumptions are incorrect, as there is strong evidencse that some agnostics are male, and some atheists are female. 2- A. Just because there might be reason not to be an atheist does not mean every person who might be an atheist is one. There are reasons why you might not want to be a Muslim in the US today- but that doesn't make all non Christians Muslim. B. Agnostics are more than simply people who just 'don't know', in fact, agnostics cover a very wide variety of beliefs including a belief in God, or the disbelief in god. Atheists, however, believe there is no God. While you might not be "100%" sure whether or not God exists, many make such claims. Christians make the claim that they are /sure/ God exists, and Atheists make the claim that they are /sure/ god does not exist.
Agnostics are just atheists without balls.

First of all, I did not make up my topic sentence, I took it from the book "I am America (and so can you) by Stephen Colbert, just in case you all start yelling "plagiarist". But this debate is about whether that is just a joke or not. I think it isn't just a joke and that agnostics are in fact atheists with no courage to admit it. Believe it or not, studies show that atheists are the most discriminated minority at least in America. That's a perfect reason for someone who is really an atheist to say "I'm an agnostic". But it really doesn't make sense because if an agnostic is someone who just "doesn't know", then we are all agnostics, because none of us are 100% sure that god exists. So... any takers?
A Good Debate on Gay Marriage

Thanks to everyone who expressed interest! Preface:I have seen many, many debates on Gay Marriage here on DDO--most of them are poorly constructed and not well thought-out. As someone who is gay, I also feel a need to set the record straight (pun intended) on many of the homophobic comments present in many of those debates. Therefore, to get this frustration out of my system,I would like to have a formal, polite, and high-quality debate on the permissibility of gay marriage. Acceptance: This debate is impossible to accept. Post a comment if you wish to debate. I will selected the most qualified opponent.Topic:Gay Marriage should be permitted in the United States.Rules:1. No hate speech or personal attacks2. No religion3. Both sides stipulate that homosexuality is--in part or in whole--a product of genetics4. No forfiets5. No trolling6. BOP is sharedStructure:R1: AcceptanceR2: Core Case (no rebuttals)R3: RebuttalsR4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals (no new arguments/responses)Note:The violation of any of these rules by any party constitutes a 7-point loss by the offender. Acceptance constitutes agreement of these rules.Thanks:In advance to InVinoVeritas for a cordial, well-done debate!
Psychiatry

I'll be debating two basic contentions: Contention 1: Psychiatry does not know the cause of any mental illness. Contention 2: Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness. Now allow me to define some crucial terms: Psychiatry-The practice or science of diagnosing and treating mental disorders. Mental illness-Any of the various forms of psychosis or severe neurosis that psychiatry recognizes the existence of. Cure-Successful remedial treatment; restoration to health Now let's address our first contention, that Psychiatry doesn't know the cause of a single mental illness. On this subject, Dr. Rex Cowdry a psychiatrist and director of National Institute of Mental Health says the following- "We do not know the causes [of any mental illness]. We don"t have the methods of "curing" these illnesses yet." This astounding concession however, is not unorthodox! Factually speaking, the professional field of psychiatry admits that it doesn't yet know the cause of their own propounded mental illnesses that are literally voted into existence. Rather than attack straw man at this point I'll wait and see what the other side has to say. Now contention number two, that psychiatry has never cured a single mental illness. I'll begin by quoting Dr. Joseph Johnson, a California psychiatrist during a court deposition in 2003-What"s a cure?"it"s just that it"s a term that we don"t use in the medical [psychiatric] profession." Now notice the contention here isn't that Psychiatry isn't able to sometimes mask symptoms(often times the placebo's they use work as well or better than their actual drugs.) Rather the contention is that they have never CURED a mental illness. Even if some of the patients symptoms are masked some of the time, this does absolutely nothing to cure the actual malady, for when a patient builds a tolerance to the drugs, or when they stop taking the drugs( even when done properly,) the mental illness comes back at the severity that it was, or often times even worse than it was. This would be like a doctor "curing" a broken leg with pain killers. Again, rather than attack straw men at this point I'll see just see what the opposition has to say.
Psychiatry

If you'll remember, I said that I would be debating two basic contentions. Contention one was, "Psychiatry doesn't know the cause of a single mental illness;" contention two was, "Psychiatry has never cured a mental illness." Now amazingly enough pro concedes that both contention one and two are true! Pro then gives a definition of "Psychiatry" and, to my astonishment, falsely claims that the definition has nothing to do with finding the cause of mental illness or curing it! I have three rebuttals that make Pro's position on this matter indefensible and internally inconsistent. Rebuttal one-by Pro's own definition, Psychiatry deals with the "prevention," "study," and "treatment of mental disorders." Since one cannot consistently and effectively prevent a medical disorder from occurring without knowing it's cause; and since finding the cause of something is part of studying it and could lead to the medical disorders resolution; finding a mental disorder's cause would fall under the domain of Psychiatry. Rebuttal two- by Pro's own definition, Psychiatry deals with the "treatment" of mental disorders; since(medically speaking) the "treatment" of mental disorders includes the curing of them, curing mental disorders does fall under the domain of Psychiatry. Rebuttal number three will be expressed as a syllogism. THE ARGUMENT OF FRAUDULENCE: Premise 1: All cases of a medical field not dealing with the causes of the disorders that pertain to it or with how to cure those disorders, is a fraudulent medical field. Premise 2: Pro thinks that Psychiatry(which is a medical field) does not deal with the causes, or cures of the disorders that pertain to it. Conclusion: Therefore, Pro thinks that Psychiatry is a fraudulent medical field. Now after Pro gives their own definition of Psychiatry and uses it to falsely circumvent the topics of debate, Pro tries to lure us away from the debate again with two Red Herrings. RED HERRING 1: "Studying mental disorders is useful." RED HERRING 2: "Treating mental disorders is useful." These two Red Herrings are not the topic of this debate and I would never argue against either of them, in fact, I agree with them! I repeat it again because it is so central to this debate, by Psychiatry's own admission it does not know the cause of any mental illness and cannot cure any either. Summary: Pro has conceded that I am right about both contention one and contention two, which are the topic of this debate. Pro propounded a definition of "psychiatry" which included both my contentions, but Pro falsely claimed that the definition did not; I then proceeded to prove that if Pro was right about this matter(which they were not,) that Psychiatry by Pro's own argument, was a fraudulent field. Pro then proceeded to attempt to lure us away from the topics of debate with two Red Herrings.
Cloning is good for mankind.

Okay, I see where you're coming from there. However, I've done a bit of research on the detrimental effects of cloned creatures which I believe could extend to cloning of organs. "The clones that have been produced, they say, often have problems severe enough -- developmental delays, heart defects, lung problems and malfunctioning immune systems -- to give pause to anyone thinking of cloning a human being. In one example that seems like science fiction come true, some cloned mice that appeared normal suddenly, as young adults, grew grotesquely fat."[1] This is a bit worrying in and of itself. If these defects focus on such important power centers of the body as heart, lungs, and the immune system, who is to say that these problems will not also be passed to individual organs. These organs may be more apt to infection and decay in the body. Organ transplant is debilitating enough in and of itself, leaving people's bodies trying desperately to displace the foreign tissue. This natural effect is lessened by medicines that lessen the immune system's effectiveness, causing weakness to infection already. If an organ with such weaknesses as were mentioned above was to be put into someone, it would not be even as simple as the already complicated process of transplantation. Now, to your idea of cloned meat: As something is cloned, it is indicated above that some part of it is lost, be it resistance to disease or healthiness. This could take away the natural benefits of meat, and could even cause outbreaks of disease and formerly unknown societal problems. While I agree with you that in a perfect world cloning could improve lives, the world we live in, full of fallible humans, is bound for destruction if such a practice is adopted.
Cloning is good for mankind.

Cloning does not necessarily mean to clone an entire person. I acknowledge the potential risks involved if we were to do that. One of my proposals is to clone organs. For example, people who are in need of kidney transplants will benefit as there will not be any occurrence of rejection by the cloned transplant. Cloning of ears, limbs, hearts are other examples. Another aspect is to clone meat for food consumption. For example, if we can clone chicken thigh meat, there will not be any animal sufferings. There will not be any animal abuse in farms. We can then manufacture meats without the expense of killing chickens, cows and pigs.
Cloning is good for mankind.

I'd like to start out by saying some of my main contentions: Earth is already extremely overpopulated--Cloning may just worsen this problem, particularly if the technology is overused (which, knowing humans, it will be. We're known for inventing things that should improve life and allowing them to destroy it instead). People and other animals alike breed at an alarming rate, and don't need the help of cloning. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. The process of cloning is a primarily untested technology, and anything that goes wrong would likely be extremely detrimental to mankind. Cloning could affect any number of things in a natural body, and these results are unknown as of yet. Allowing clones into our world would likely cause more problems than it could plausibly solve, What precisely do you think cloning would improve? -Milo
Yo mama debate

That's no Fun. --- 21. Yo Mama so stinky, they use for for the death penalty; death by vomiting. 22. Yo Mama so dirty, she grows her own potatoes in her ears. 23. Yo Mama so dirty, she has a part time job as a continent 24. Yo Mama so dirty, archeologists dig for fossils on her 25. Yo Mama so mean, she takes milk from babies 26. Yo Mama so mean, she cheers at funerals 27. Yo Mama so mean, she thinks the obituaries are funnier than the comics 28. Yo Mama so boring, her favorite sport is dusting 29. Yo Mama so boring, she thinks dry crackers have too much flavor 30. Yo Mama so boring, she watches infomercials for fun
Yo mama debate

Try copypasta 1 Yo mama house so small that when she orders a large pizza she had to go outside to eat it. 2 Yo mama house so small she has to go outside to eat a large pizza. 3 Yo mama house so small you have to go outside to change your mind. 4 Yo mama so old I told her to act her own age, and she died. 5 Yo mama so old her social security number is 1! 6 Yo mama so old that when she was in school there was no history class. 7 Yo mama so old she has a picture of Moses in her yearbook. 8 Yo mama so old her birth certificate says expired on it. 9 Yo mama so old she knew Burger King while he was still a prince. 10 Yo mama so old she was a waitress at the Last Supper.
Yo mama debate

Wow these are getting hard to think of >->' Also, my opponent has contradicted themselves in jokes numbers 11-12, and jokes numbers 19-20. They've claimed that my mother is both tall and short. --- 11. Yo Mama so dumb, she failed a blood test 12. Yo Mama so dumb, she sold her car for gas money 13. Yo Mama so hairy, she played Chubaka in the star wars movies 14. Yo Mama so hairy, she needs a fan while in Antarctica 15. Yo Mama so hairy, she has a part time job as Velcro 16. Yo Mama so short, she doesn't open doors; she just walks underneath them 17. Yo Mama so short, she gets mistaken for a welcome mat 18. Yo Mama so short, she only exists in two dimensions 19. Yo Mama so stinky, she got fired from the sewage treatment plant for smelling too bad 20. Yo Mama so stinky, she's considered a weapon in 14 states.
Yo mama debate

1 Yo mama so tall she tripped over a rock and hit her head on the moon. 2 Yo mama so tall she tripped in Michigan and hit her head in Florida. 3 Yo mama so bald, when she braids her hair, it looks like stitches. 4 Yo mama so bald, when she puts on a turtle neck she looks like a roll on deodorant. 5 Yo mama so bald, when she goes to bed, her head slips off the pillow. 6 Yo mama so bald even a wig wouldn't help! 7 Yo mama so bald you can see whats on her mind 8 Yo mama so bald that she took a shower and got brain-washed. 9 Yo mama so short she poses for trophies! 10 Yo mama so short you can see her feet on her drivers license!
Yo mama debate

Good Luck! 1. Yo mama so ugly, she looked in the mirror and broke the sink. 2. yo mama so ugly, is she went on t.v. the show would be rated R for ugly 3. yo mama so ugly, when she was born the doctor slapped yo gramma 4. Yo mama so fat, she took a bath with a single water drop and the bathtub overflowed. 5. Yo mama so fat, she went to sea-world and Shamu said "We are family; even though you're fatter than me" 6. Yo mama so fat, she fell down in the middle of the road, and I ran out of gas trying to get around her. 7. Yo mama so old, her birth certificate her birth certificate has a single digit 8. Yo mama so old, she went to school with Adam and Eve 9. Yo mama so old, she remembers when the American revolution where current events 10. Yo mama so dumb, you graduated high school five year before her