BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Health is useful in school from grade 7-12

Hello again DDO! I am back to verse my good friend: erossucks123, on the topic Health is useful in school from grade 7-12. Now to the rules: ROUND ONE: Acceptance of rules. If my opponent wants to change any of these rules, please say so here! ROUND TWO: Pro: First arguments. Con: rebuttal and first arguments. ROUND THREE: Pro: Rebuttal and final arguments. Con: Final arguments/rebuttal. No rebuttal for my final arguments since I can have none for yours. No forfeits, unless both sides agree. Thanks, Jacob
Health is useful in school from grade 7-12

schools just repeat the same lessons and info that you already know.I know in my grade seven class we learned about relationships and how to make them and that was in place of our sex ed class. plus the students are not going to listen to the teachers requests because they think that the class is a joke. The health classes teach good habits and bad habits that students already know. plus sex ed come on most students from grade seven to twelve know about most things sex ed. and yet the school boards insist on making you go to a waste of time class whilst you could be doing math or science or social studies.
Pet owners must have a license and permit for each pet

Nice new argument in the last round, but it still isn't responsive to what I actually said. Sure, criminals steal. But that doesn't mean they can't also buy things the right way. Can't really stop them then. So this debate breaks down really easily:1. This law won't stop criminals for two reasons: a) Criminals already break the law. They don't care about breaking another one. b) Criminals can get around it legally if they wanted to.2. It causes the potential for more problems than it solves for innocent people.
Pet owners must have a license and permit for each pet

Alright. So let's consider your permit in terms of animal fighting and abuse again.a) You never responded to the point that making something illegal will not stop criminals who will do it regardless, permit or no permit. This will just make animal sales hit the black market, which only funds criminal activities more.b) But this actually allows smart criminals to walk on pretty obvious charges. Let's say a smart criminal wanted to start a dog fighting ring, but knew that the permits were in place. He buys one, then buys all the dogs he wants to start his ring. He requires whoever submits dogs to fight to have permits as well. And if any of those injuries end up in the vet's office, they can waive their permits and dispell any suspicion on them. So this only allows other criminals who would've previously been caught to get off scott free without actually stopping anything.Overall, it's just a horrible idea.
Pet owners must have a license and permit for each pet

You do have a point but, permits can be of low cost. Also money isn't the matter of the situation if you listened to anything I said. I said that if this happens it will stop animal cruelty.Permits can cost $10 to $50 dollars for a pet, but that isn't the problem!! If people have permits for a pet, it makes sure that they can't abuse it. I don't care how much it costs. The government doesn't have to make it an incredibly high price (in which your mind is thinking) This is so people won't abuse animals. And I am sure that people giving the pet will check if they have a permit first!! Therefore you have no reason for why there should not be permits for pets.
Pet owners must have a license and permit for each pet

Okay, so my opponent's argument consists of a broken link. I really don't know what else to say. He's saying it will prevent animal fights and animal cruelty, but I'd like to point out that, like any crime, making a crime illegal will not prevent criminals from taking part in the activity. So by enacting this, it creates the problems listed below and solves nothing:1. An old cat lady wants to buy another kitten to add to her attempt to own the most cats (she's currently at 53). She also has alzheimers, so not only does she lose count of her cats, she forgot this stupid rule got enacted, and she's getting arrested on charges of animal fighting.2. A small child saved up enough pennies to buy his first puppy! How cute! Too bad that he never knew anything higher than two plus two, and didn't realize he had to save up more pennies to get some dumb permit to own a puppy, and now he's getting thrown behind bars on charges of animal fighting. How cute! /sarcasm3. A daddy wants to make his little girl's dreams come true and buy her a pony! What a swell guy! Too bad in his rush to scrap together the money to BUY a horse and place for it to sleep and eat and all that junk, he forgot to get the permit and is getting thrown behind bars. Prison visits are hard on children, and she never did get that pony. Now she thinks he's the biggest a**hole of a father, and he's getting bum-raped by some huge guy named Pedro. And you don't want to get bum-raped by Pedro.So, it's an easy vote in negation.
Pet owners must have a license and permit for each pet

This should be a law because animal cruelty takes place in the U.S.A. and around the world everyday. I don't know how you can argue if you are against animal cruelty take a look at this picture maybe you will change your mind: (copy and paste the following link) WARNING: THIS MAYBE HARD FOR SOME PEOPLE TO LOOK AT!!!file://localhost/Users/boltboy105/Desktop/animal_cruelty_starved.jpg
Simon Pegg is Tchaikovsky

I believe this is the picture to which you are referring to? If so, while it is rather funny, it would be impossible for Simon Pegg/Tchaikovsky to have lived for this long. In fact, the oldest living person recorded would be Jeanne Calment who lived to be 122. Tchaikovsky would smash this record as he would be 178 years old. s://pbs.twimg.com...; alt="Image result for simon pegg is tchaikovsky" />In short, Simon Pegg (good actor btw) is not Tchaikovsky and never will be, regardless of their shared physical similarities.
Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America. This won't help America

"Universal health care" is available to citizens only. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Costs: I've shown that universal health care reduces costs via decreased emergency procedures. My opponent's dominant arguement against this is that these "visiting Latinos" would be treated at the cost of United States taxpayers. However, my definitions show that this is not the case. My opponent fails to warrant how universal healthcare will increase costs, I demonstrate the manner in which it will decrease them. The American citizen purchases their own healthcare either way. However, with universal health care, this becomes cheaper. My opponent fails to provide the manner in which universal health care is more expensive than private. My opponent's foreigner arguement is refuted by the correct definition. Therefore, my economic benefits stand. Yes, this impacts rich citizens the most. However, the middle-class, not the rich, generate the most consumer spending, and therefore, have the greatest economic impact. For these reasons, I stand strongly in Contradiction of this resolution. Thanks for the debate, and thanks to everyone for reading. If you would care to debate this topic again, please re-post.
Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America. This won't help America

No, not "single player health care" UNIVERSAL health care. This would provide health care to anyone currently in America, citizen or not. "By providing healthcare to all, the cost is reduced. Single-payer healthcare will allow all persons to receive regular check-ups. This will lead to far fewer costly emergency procedures, which, in the circumstances of the impoverished, are currently paid for by the government." On the contrary, the cost is not reduced, no one would pay for health care, so who would, someone must do it. So who does? the AMERICAN taxpayers. not the Latino who was at the time visiting family in America. So in the end, it DOES tear down America. For a brief moment it will be nice for family's to recieve no bill for their sons open heart surgery, but when tax time comes around, boy will they be hurting. "By providing healthcare to all, the cost is reduced. Single-payer healthcare will allow all persons to receive regular check-ups. This will lead to far fewer costly emergency procedures, which, in the circumstances of the impoverished, are currently paid for by the government." No, buisnesses will no longer have to provide healthcare for employes, but then comes the tax time of year when family's will be paying, one way or another. Regular check-ups yes. But who will be doing the checking? Doctors, doctors need to be paid, they spent thousands to hundreds of thousands to go to medical school. So when will they get paid if not at the time of the check-up? TAX TIME! And who will be paying taxes? American citizens! Not the Austrailian who was on vacation. So who WILL be paying the taxes? YOUR PARENTS! Yes you, your parents. So no money is left for Christmas, no money for your dance at your school, no money left for your skateboard! I can't stress this enough! Only American citizens will bve paying! "Rich people do not benefit from this program." That is what I said, if you had read my argument. They will get taxed the most and will lost the most money. NOT PERCENTAGE wise, only in dollars, no the average American will loose the most lpercentage wise, so I ask you, DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENCE? come on! You are an American! Stand up for what needs to be done! Obama WILL destroy our country if something isn't done!!!!!!!!! DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? I again apologise for my inability to post the 2nd round, if you would like we can debate in the comments bar. VIEWERS PLEASE NOTE THIS!
Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America. This won't help America

Thus far, my opponent has failed to warrant his arguments; hopefully he will do this in the next round, as the burden of proof lies with him. Single-payer healthcare eliminates price inflation. Health insurance providers are for-profit organizations. As a result, they provide healthcare at the highest cost possible while remaining competitive. A single-payer healthcare system would be non-profit, and thus reflect the actual cost of providing the healthcare in its premiums. By providing healthcare to all, the cost is reduced. Single-payer healthcare will allow all persons to receive regular check-ups. This will lead to far fewer costly emergency procedures, which, in the circumstances of the impoverished, are currently paid for by the government. The lower cost of healthcare will lead to greater expendable income per capita, and hence more consumer-spending, which is an economic driving force. Businesses will no longer be required to provide healthcare to their employees. Currently, healthcare is of great cost to businesses. If they were no longer required to provide it, they would be able to expand at a greater rate, thus hiring more employees, and lowering the unemployment rate. Also, they would be able to provide higher salaries, again leading to greater consumer spending. "Rich people know this." Rich people do not benefit from this program. They already have adequate health care, and are taxed progressively. However, the wealthy compose a small proportion of our population. Single-payer healthcare will benefit the poor, and the middle-class, being the primary force behind consumer spending. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to debate this topic. I await your response.
Obama's idea for "Universal Health Care" will only tear down America. This won't help America

Obama's idea for universal health care will not help America. It will hurt the economy, the middle class, and anyone who pays taxes. Rich people know this. They make lots of money and don't want to loose another penny to another one of Obma's idiotic plans, such as heavily taxing anyone who makes over $150,000 a year (that number has been lowered three times since August). Resolution: If this plan of the President's is put into action, America will only fall into a deeper recession.
I can post video clips that are more entertaining than yours

Monty Python "I'll bite your legs off!" http://youtu.be... Ace Ventura 2 "Rhino birth" http://youtu.be... Kung Pow "Vs. Cow" http://youtu.be... "Evolution Southpark style" http://youtu.be... Ace Ventura 1 "Do you have a mint?" http://youtu.be... Stepbrother "Dale Sings" http://youtu.be... Stepbrothers "You wanna punch me in the face?" http://youtu.be...
I can post video clips that are more entertaining than yours

I like your style and shall accept your ridiculous challenge of YouTube awesomeness.1. You've got a lot of Freddy Got Fingered clips in there. But you're missing my personal favorite: Daddy would you like some sausages?http://www.youtube.com...; 2. An updated PSA announcement from Woodsy Owl.http://www.youtube.com...;3. Potato-domo!http://www.youtube.com...;
This a great surreal poem-The Odalisque

I am not trying to 'weasel' out of giving my opinion. I am taking the Con position, therefore my opinion is obvious. I think it is not a great surreal poem. If my opponent wasn't quite clear on that, I hope it has cleared it up.If we take the sum total of my opponent's arguments, I would in fact say that HE is trying to weasel out of making his role in the debate, which is to prove that this is a great surreal poem. I've read it. It sucks. It may be a great surreal poem to YOU, Mr shakuntala, but your role in the debate is to convince me. You have failed.I'm in fact trying to help you, because you have no hope of winning, because I have convinced myself that this poem sucks. Now let's assume you put this in the forums. You have a chance of at least someone liking it. But here, when you phrased the resolution in such a way that one person not linking negates it, you have not chance.Over to you, shakuntala.
This a great surreal poem-The Odalisque

con says "It does not matter what my subjective judgement is, this is a debate. This belongs in the forum, not as a debate." reply if con did believe this question should be in a forum rather than a debate he should have said that in his first reply con is now changing the goal post because he is trying to weasel out of giving us his opinion of as to weather this is a great surreal poem con said in his first post "Poetry is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and therefore, unless you can prove that to all people it is a 'great surreal poem' then I automatically win. reply I told him i did not say a great surreal poem for all thus undermining his claim that he wins the debate note con did not reply to my argument again now he is again trying to weasel out of giving us his opinion of as to weather this is a great surreal poem
This a great surreal poem-The Odalisque

con says "Poetry is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and therefore, unless you can prove that to all people it is a 'great surreal poem' then I automatically win." reply 1)con says "unless you can prove that to all people" I did not say to all people this poem is great" i said "This a great surreal poem" con says "Poetry is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so then I was expressing a subjective judgement so you tell us your subjective judgement-after you have read the poem
This a great surreal poem-The Odalisque

I ague this is a great surreal poem The-Odalisque http://www.scribd.com... Example the glass vases to screeching owls do form juspyou nabennty he he curtains stained in green mist weep glassy globes of dew glowing like congealed blood the hair of she flashes in to fiery flames of flickering golden light her face melts like creamy custard golden paste as the flesh of she bursts into flames the butterfly evaporated into multicolored mist
This a great surreal poem-The Odalisque

con says "YOU need to support your claim with arguments, not me. I have already provided reasons. reply 1) con says YOU need to support your claim with arguments, i have given my argument in the first post where i quoted some lines from the poem to show why i think it is a great surreal poem 2) con says "I have already provided reasons." a)all con says was he thinks the post should be in the forum he has not backed up by examples from the poem to show why the poem is not a great surreal poem b) con has only said that ""unless you can prove that to all people" he wins but as i pointed outI did not say to all people this poem is great" i said "This a great surreal poem" thus con has not provided arguments quote to show why he thinks it is not great surreal poem
This a great surreal poem-The Odalisque

con says "I am not trying to 'weasel' out of giving my opinion. I am taking the Con position, therefore my opinion is obvious. I think it is not a great surreal poem. I" reply con admits that he does not think this is a great surreal poem but note he has not told us why it is not a great surreal poem it is cons duty by taking the con position to back up his claims with arguments and not just state his position ie con says " I think it is not a great surreal poem. I"" so con after reading the poem could you back up your claim "I think it is not a great surreal poem. I" with some argument
Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

After pondering over what my adversary was attempting to say, I am going to try to respond. I literally could not place together half that argument due to typos and bad grammar. ResponseIn Vitro Fertilization is a method in " One of the reasons why people marry is due to love and procreation " where gay couples can pro create, so this argument is null. "Monitor and stimulate the development of healthy egg(s) in the ovaries.Collect the eggs.Secure the sperm.Combine the eggs and sperm together in the laboratory and provide the appropriate environment for fertilization and early embryo growth.Transfer embryos into the uterus"[1]Response 2" It is awkward.my opponent said that same-sex attracte individuals are from birth that it is natural, but fail to justify that argument "I did justify this and in great detail, if you wish to read my argument again feel free. Response 3" that same sex marriage should not be in u.s.a owning to the fact that it is not even generally acceptable. "This line of logic is a mind F**k. How would we legalize anything if it is not generally accepted? Slavery, interracial marriage, and even women voting would not have been legalized if we went off what was generally accepted. Response 4" Premise: since the same-sex marriage cannot solve the social, political, and economic problems of u.s.a, then they should not be legalized "Yep sex cannot solve the problems within the US economy, lets pass a federal ban. Let's wipe out the populaces while we are it. Response 4" It denies children the privilege to have different sex as parent in u.s.a "I am lost as to how to even respond to thisI am not sure how to even respond to this. My adversary is saying gay marriage denies children the right to have different sex as parents. As if by some magical force gay marriage is going to make children parents and prevent them from having rough or kinky sex. This point just killed my brainConclusionI have no idea how to even type this out. This is really clear and very easy to vote on. I refuted every argument that my adversary had that was viable, while the other half he had either made no sense at all or were just irrelevant to the topic at hand. [1] http://americanpregnancy.org...
Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

I have been cornered at a wall, indefinately parallel to my very unruffled impacable person by my opponent who conveniently chose to ignore the fact that all rights,have limitation. Ponder on what was said by my opponent, she rightly put it that in u.s.a, there is right of marriage and equity.my opponent failed to understand that there is limitation of right. Not when the right is at the detrement of the citizens. Checking the world population, they are about 50million as stated by nairaland.com and thousands of country but only few not even up to 20countries that legalized it. The benefit of the same sex marriage is what i have not seen rather it will even affect us.let me ask, why do people marry? One of the reasons why people marry is due to love and procreation. I ask again, how can one be attracted to his or her own sex? It is awkward.my opponent said that same-sex attracte individuals are from birth that it is natural, but fail to justify that argument..haven't we heard of the the scientific words that says'like pole attracts while unlike pole repels' what am i saying, that same sex marriage should not be in u.s.a owning to the fact that it is not even generally acceptable. Premise: since the same-sex marriage cannot solve the social, political, and economic problems of u.s.a, then they should not be legalized. Let my opponent justify that in her next line of argument
Gay marriage should be legal in the United States

I had a big response laid out but due to my opponents limited contentions I am going to respond briefly instead. Since he really made no argument, I don't want to put the effort into a giant argument. Premise 1 : Homosexuals cannot control whom they attracted to. (a) Homosexuality is found in nature" Homosexual behavior is found in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the world " [1](b) animals are ruled by instinct and not rationality. Animals have urges that they cannot control and this is found in nature and is a common trend" It was (and is) common to think that other animals are ruled by "instinct" whereas humans lost their instincts and are ruled by "reason", and that this is why we are so much more flexibly intelligent than other animals " [2](c) Humans are rational but cannot control what instincts they have. There are many studies that are starting to prove that testosterone levels, parental factors, and genetics all play a roll in if someone will become homosexual. Meaning it is not their choice to be homosexual, but they have the urge at birth. While committing homosexual acts is a choice, they can no more choose this than we can choose our attraction to women. Where once the scientific and medical establishment maintained an unqualified belief that homosexuality was a form of psychological deviance, today a solid majority of psychiatrists and psychologists themselves believe in biological theories (genes, brain, prenatal chemistry) over environmental or psychological theories. [3]Premise 2 : The Us Constitution promises everyone the right to marry someone they love(a) The right to marriage and equality" The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. In other words, the laws of a state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances." [4](b) Loving Vs Virginia This cases goes to prove that supreme court approves marriage equality. The overturned a law in Virginia that prohibited white people from marrying other people of different races. The irony was the law did not stop any other races from marring other races, but directly effected white people. They were only allowed to marry other white people. This law was the first step in marriage equality and goes as far as to show that gay marriage should be legalized. [5]ConclusionHomosexuals cannot chose what genetics and hormones they have. The have urges that is deep within them. We are promised the right to marriage equality under the 14th amendment and the supreme court even went as far as to acknowledge this in Loving vs Virginia.Gay marriage should be legalized in the same regard. Equality is equality for all. [1] http://www.yalescientific.org...[2] http://cogweb.ucla.edu...[3] http://www.pbs.org...[4] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...