BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Green Day is better than AC/DC

I'll be taking Pro on this debate saying, "Green Day is better than AC/DC."You need facts that one band is better than the other. You can post vidoes to help compare. 1st round is acceptance and acceptance only.2-4 posting songs and facts5. rebuttles and you can post a song.RulesYou can only post one song at a time.No cussing.FF equals attomatic loss.If any of these rules are broken all 7 points go to the opposition.Your turn Bill
Green Day is better than AC/DC

1st thing I like to bring up is this is Green Day not Metallica. MTV Music Video Awards The music video for "Longview" was nominated for the following: Best Group VideoBest New ArtistBest Alternative Video. American Music AwardsFavorite Alternative Artist - Nominated Grammy Award in 2011Won Best Alternative Music Performance (Dookie) - WonBest New Artist - NominatedBest Hard Rock Performance ("Longview") - NominatedBest Rock Vocal Performance by a Duo or Group ("Basket Case") - NominatedBay Area Music AwardsOutstanding Album - Won sources (there's more from where that came from) http://www.greendayauthority.com...enjoy Green Day's song to stick it to the man http://www.youtube.com...
Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers

Ah well.I beleive that my argument is true, but you are clearly the better debator. I don't concede, but besides your sexist term mishap, you have presented your arguments very well in this debate. Voters, vote whoever you think was best, but I'm not going to waste my time debating when I feel I have lost.Well done to my opponent, you put up a great case!
Homosexual Teachers ought not be hired as teachers

You have given a suitable argument... if the debate was "Principals can not hire homosexuals if they don't want to". But it isn't, it's about whether homosexuals ought or ought not be hired for a job. It seems that you have strayed from the topic, and I'd encourage you to think more about whether homosexuals are suitable for the job, which is what your debate topic is about.Saying this, there are still some aspects of your debate that I'd like to rebut.Firstly, "Principal Brown is in charge of the school."Unless you are reffering to private schools (you should have specified) this is incorrect. Although a principal is hired to manage the staff and school, the school is still in the power of the government, as it is a government-funded institution, therefore, the Government does have ruling power, and the principal doesn't have permission to do whatever he or she would like. If you meant that the principal is in charge of hiring staff you should have said so. Even in Private Schools where the government isn't in charge, the school still has a Governer and a board of governers (like gov-funded schools have) and the school Governer is at a higher position of authority that the school principal. After all, the governer and board of governers can dismiss (fire) the principal, whereas the principal can't fire the governer. Secondly, "Principal Brown has the authority to choose who to hire and who not to hire"I'm not rebutting this point per se, as it is true, but more the context in which you have used it. It is true that the principal has the authority to hire a teacher, but this should be based on their qualifications, experience and how suitable they are for the job. Not their gender, race, ethnicity or sexuality. This is discrimination. I think you'd agree with me if I said that it was wrong for a male principal to only hire other men, because he just didn't want women working in his school- yet you beleive it's okay if "women" in replaced with "homosexuals"? It is against the law to hire someone discriminatively, so your next point, "Principal Brown is justified in not hiring the homosexual teacher." is entirely false.
Tumblr ( con) vs facebook (pro)

In addition to my other argument, I forgot to add this. "You are able to post funny photos and do everything that tumblr can do and more". That is true, but in a different way. Facebook and Tumblr can do many of the same things, yet are very different social platforms. Alright, that is about it.Rebuttal: You in fact can communicate on Tumblr. If you go to your blog settings and allow people to message you, they then can leave you messages. You also get to choose whether your replies are private, or if it shows up on your blog*. Again, very different social platforms. Also, "Facebook helps to keep people together bring people together for events and alike." I do admit that Facebook does have a better hand on this, but would like to point out that Tumblr is more for fun, instead of planning outside of computer events.Arguments: Please extend all arguments since the instigator did not bother to rebuttal. Especially pay attention to #5, where I said that Tumblr was better than Facebook. My opponent said this was true, and I agree. But in all fairness, I do not think he read that part, or he just skimmed over it.Sources:http://answers.yahoo.com...
Tumblr ( con) vs facebook (pro)

I accept your challenge.My main points:1) Tumblr offers much greater flexibility in designing the basic view of your home page than Facebook. 2) Tumblr has a much higher rating than Facebook, with Facebook at 3.5 and Tumblr at 4.7.*3) Tumblr is more focused than Facebook.4) Tumblr is more popular with 13-25 year olds than Facebook**, and to add to the fact that teens spend more time on Tumblr than on Facebook.***5) Overall, Tumblr is much better than Facebook.Sources: * http://social-networking.findthebest.com... ** http://nypost.com...; *** http://news.cnet.com...
Introversion is Not a Mental Illness

"I would like to define introversion as having the behavioural pattern that supports isolation, preferring solitary life styles and hobbies." -EdwardJLHaighYou are quite wrong. Are you confusing introversion with being asocial? Introverts only need to be alone after a social event."Extroverts have been proved to be happier in life than introverts." -EdwardJLHaighJust because extroverts enjoy social activities doesn't mean they are more happy. Introverts often enjoy solitary activities like reading and writing.If there are no introverts in the world, would there still be Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, and Abraham Lincoln as we know it, and the laptop/computer you are posting an argument from?
Introversion is Not a Mental Illness

Firstly I would like to define mental illness as having a mental or behavioural pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life. Secondly I would like to define introversion as having the behavioural pattern that supports isolation, preferring solitary life styles and hobbies. I would like the voters to realise that Pro has stated "Introversion is Not a Mental Illness" and I wish to emphasise 'Not'. I will show evidence that Introversion can be classed as a mental illness when someone is at the extreme side of the introverted-extroverted scale. I would first like to draw your attention to this test: 5 signs you are an introvert. . http://psychology.about.com... Point one and five of this 'test' on self-diagnosing yourself as an introvert include quite negative issues. Point one claims you are introverted if being around lots of people drains you of energy. Point five claims that too much simulation leaves you distracted and unfocused. These are two rather large factors to consider if you claim introversion is not a mental illness as having the behavioural traits of an introvert cause you too have impaired ability to function in standard situations. Secondly I wish to argue that introverts, due to their negative behavioural traits stemming from their personality, are less happy than other people in society and more likely to develop further mental illnesses. Extroverts have been proved to be happier in life than introverts. People who are not happy can suffer further mental illnesses in life, meaning that if you are introverted, you're more likely to suffer from mental illnesses like depression than their extroverted counterpart. More than this, introverts are more likely to feel negative in negative situations, while feeling less positive in positive situations, a common mentality shared with multiple other mental illnesses! Source: . http://www.sciencedirect.com... Source: . http://www.sciencedirect.com... Source: . http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... To summarise, I will argue that introversion fits the description of a mental illness and that introverts shares similar traits to many other common forms of mental illnesses. By doing this, I will prove that if you are an extreme introvert, you are indeed suffering with a mental anomaly, a mental disability to function as one would like too, a mental illness.
Human cloning is bad for our society and future

Pro had an interesting stance that I've heard before but I had never took the time to reflect on where I stood and why. I learned a few things along the way and in that research found considerably more positive aspects to the evolving and broadening field of genetics than negatives. The concerns that exist will be solved by the best of us. I wished my first debate would have been furnished with better arguments. Pro took the position that human cloning would be harmful to society but didn't support her argument well. Her argument failed to demonstrate how human cloning with 7 billion potential donors would present a harm to humanity. She also failed to respond to the countless benefits and spin off technologies that develop along the way. She had no response to the relief of suffering that this evolving technology will provide in the very near future.
Human cloning is bad for our society and future

However Pro did not offer an answer as to to how we would lose genetic diversity and then offers this: PRO: "Evolution, in my own words, is the natural change and adaption in species that allows them to survive a changing environment. With the reusing of genes, evolution would not happen anymore. " My opponent is still operating on the assumption that nature has a plan for survival. Genetic diversity and biodiversity is simply an odds game whereby the survival of a species is more likely where there is a greater diversity in the gene pool. Pro mistakenly makes assumptions that there are only a handful of donors available within the human population and this is simply not the case. Another problem with Pro"s argument is that "evolution would not happen anymore. This is completely wrong since anything that is genetically cloned becomes subject to the same environmental pressure that already exists. PRO: "At least not in humans, but in animals (assuming they have not already been cloned), they will change and they could change enough that we couldnt get used to it. As for cloning with animals, this would increse the use of animal farms because we could just clone the most healthy, buff ones. We would be taking animals for granted then, and the cloning of animals would be beneficial to humans, rather than the species of that animal, or to all the animals. " My opponent has not considered the fact that domesticated species of animals do not play into the evolutionary picture. There are huge advantages where the advancements in genetics provide us the ability to recover endangered species. Also, in the course of pursuing genetic sciences we have developed the ability to feed 7 billion humans. PRO: "I have gotten a bit of the topic of human cloning, there is another important factor to why cloning is negative. The value of human life would decrease. Why worry about your health when you can just use the organs of your clone? And would the clone have rights to citizenship? Would this act be legal? We would be using clones to cheat life and to create more of a "utopian" society. " Here pro is making more unsupported claims that largely lie outside the scope of this debate. I would ask Pro to demonstrate how one measures value in terms of human life. However, I posit that it is measured by health, happiness and well being without denying those things to others. References: . http://www.geneticsandsociety.org... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Human cloning is bad for our society and future

Evolution, in my own words, is the natural change and adaption in species that allows them to survive a changing environment. With the reusing of genes, evolution would not happen anymore. At least not in humans, but in animals (assuming they have not already been cloned), they will change and they could change enough that we couldnt get used to it. As for cloning with animals, this would increse the use of animal farms because we could just clone the most healthy, buff ones. We would be taking animals for granted then, and the cloning of animals would be beneficial to humans, rather than the species of that animal, or to all the animals. I have gotten a bit of the topic of human cloning, there is another important factor to why cloning is negative. The value of human life would decrease. Why worry about your health when you can just use the organs of your clone? And would the clone have rights to citizenship? Would this act be legal? We would be using clones to cheat life and to create more of a "utopian" society.
Human cloning is bad for our society and future

Pro: First of all, cloning humans would decrease genetic diversity throughout the world. By cloning, we are copying the same genes of one person and bringing it into the clone. And if cloning starts to become an everyday thing, then the genes of the clone will get passed on, etc. My opponent believes that our species genetic diversity would become depleted or exhausted due to the removal of the pressures of natural selection and genetic mutation. This is far from what we should expect from our biotechnological future. We have the ability to genetically map 7 billion different humans. Pro: Also, DNA diversity would lack and this would prevent evolution from happening the natural way. Humans would not change - because the same genes would continue to circle around - but the environment would. My opponent seems to believe that evolution is working to preserve humanity. That is not the case. Evolution is an unguided and natural process without purpose. Therefore evolution doesn't predict the future and seek the best answer to preserve a species. Ironically, this is something that one of the evolving species can seek to do through its technology and understanding of human cloning. Pro: This would affect the future and essentially, our survival limits. Humans have been changing over the last millions of years to go with what the environment is doing, and without genetic diversity, we, as humans, would not be able to survive or live as better as we are today. Advances in biotechnology will bring about the use of genetic manipulation for physical and mental augmentation. Genetic technology will bring about new techniques that have the potential to eliminate the need for organ transplants, thereby reducing or eliminating the corruption and crime involved in the illegal traffic of human organs. This technology will have the capacity to relieve the psychological suffering of childless couples, or those who endure emotional distress of childhood illnesses. Future advances in biotechnology could even act to preserve the human species rather than our species becoming extinct through unknown disease or genetic mutation. Developing the ability to clone humans can preserve, protect and enhance diversity rather than diminish it.
Human cloning is bad for our society and future

First of all, cloning humans would decrease genetic diversity throughout the world. By cloning, we are copying the same genes of one person and bringing it into the clone. And if cloning starts to become an everyday thing, then the genes of the clone will get passed on, etc. Also, DNA diversity would lack and this would prevent evolution from happening the natural way. Humans would not change - becase the same genes would continue to circle around - but the environment would. This would affect the future and essientially, our survival limits. Humans have been changing over the last millions of years to go with what the environment is doing, and without genetic diversity, we, as humans, would not be able to survive or live as better as we are today.
Dogs vs. Cats

I will first state my own contentions then I will attack my opponents. Contention 1: Cats are accomodating and polite to guests. Dogs are typically excited and eager to greet guests. Unfortunately, this behavior is more often than not unappreciated by said guest. The larger, more popular dogs are capable of physically harming humans by jumping on them, especially small children. A cat is less social which is actually a good thing. A cat will not randomly jump on a guest with malicious intent or even good intent and be capable of severely harming said guest while a dog could. Contention 2: There are no recorded cases of non-disease related deaths caused by cats. While both dogs and cats can spread disease, there is no record of a person being completely mauled to death by a cat. While listed here (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) are fatal attacks by dogs that have resulted in deaths. Contention 3: Cats are quieter. It is physically impossible for a cat to be louder than a dog. While dogs can be deafeningly loud and impossible to shut up without muzzling, cats can only mew so loud and won't be heard mewing more often than not. Contention 4: Cats take up less room. Dogs make bigger feces, take more room, take more maintenance, and cost more to own. Now to address my opponent's arguments: My opponent's first contention was that a dog protects your house, but an alarm can do just the same and even better. A dog only alerts you of an intrusion while an alarm not only alerts you but the police, so a dog is more a liability when one could just buy an alarm for that purpose. Secondly, my opponent states that dogs are more affectionate and 'will be there licking your face and jumping around and they cant wait to see you. ' Most people would not find having a large animal jump on them pleasant or safe, and an animal licking your face is not at all sanitary and can spread disease. Also, if a dog were to do that to a small child, the child would be harmed. However, a cat offers the same contentment as a dog when being pet only it will not be able to maul you in the process. Lastly, my opponent states that dogs can be service animals. However, cats can be too, so this point is invalid (. http://affluent.net...). I thoroughly enjoyed this debate and congratulate my opponent for her great arguments.
Dogs vs. Cats

Two of the most common pets that seem to be in almost every household are in fact, both dogs and cats. I am here to try to convince you why dogs are better than cats. I have many reasons, and here they are/is that dogs protect your house, the will love you no matter what and understand you when sad, they greet you when you come home, and can be trained as service animals I now would to define a specific term, DOG. According to the dictionary, a dog is a domesticated carnivorous mammal that typically has a long snout, an acute sense of smell, and a barking, howling, or whining voice. Now I am going to defend my points. My first point was that dogs protect you house. If a robber was to break into your home a dog would bark to alert you or scare the robber away. While a cat would just ignore him and walk away. You see, dogs are very lovable and will stand up for its family, which leads me to my next contention, which was that dogs comfort you and love you like it is part of your pack. "Dogs think your the best person in the world even if you are grumpy, when you come home from school or work your Dogs will be there licking your face and jumping around and they cant wait to see you, while cats don't notice if you are there or not as long as they get their food." When me and my family leave, my puppy waits at the window for us to come home and stays there until we come back. Its like she does not spend enough time with her. :) Anyways, my third and final contention is that dogs can be trained as service animals. Service animals, help the blind, people with hearing problems, and have other disabilities. For these reasons, I believe that dogs are better than cats. Thank You
Ban Books

"If the NSA believes that books that don"t have any "classified" information in them should be banned then what is the reaon for that." This is not even comprehensible, nor is it an argument. I'm referring to a banning of books by former assets or employees, that could reveal serious security weaknesses that if exposed could put millions of lives at risk. It is certainly justifiable to ban a book that could get large numbers of people killed.
Taxes are Morally Justified

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited his opening round. Per the resolution, I will be arguing that taxes are in fact morally justified. To begin, I"ll present a few definitions: Tax " "a sum of money demanded by a government for its support for special facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc." [1] Justified " "to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable." [2] Moral " "adhering to conventionally accepted standards of conduct." [3] The first argument my opponent could make, and that I would make were I in his place, is that morality is subjective: that because different societies and individuals may possess different standards for what would constitute "accepted standards of conduct," it isn"t possible to claim that anything is in fact justified. However, this simply isn"t the case. Per the definition of "justified" that I have noted, I must merely prove that something is, at the very least, reasonable. How do we determine whether or not it is "morally justified?" Simply by ascertaining whether or not our conception of "reasonableness" comports with conventionally accepted standards of conduct. These standards need not be universal throughout human societies or even throughout countries, but within a society. We can define society narrowly such that it means a local neighborhood, a student body, or a nonprofit organization. Provided that I can demonstrate that taxes are justified within at least one society, I have upheld my burden of proof. First, I"m going to provide the expected appeal to the "social contract," for which philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have expressed support. In reference to this concept, Celeste Friend from Hamilton College writes the following [4]: "Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons" moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live." The point of the social contract, the premise upon which any form of taxation is based, is that people collectively decide to pool together their resources toward some greater end, be that public schools, infrastructure, education, national defense, et al. Now, there are several reasonable applications of this, some of which are at least ostensibly objective. For instance, the principle of self-defense. If a country is attacked, it has a right to respond in order to defend itself, in the national interest. In order to do this, however, there needs to be collective action, barring a sizeable donation of hundred of billions of dollars, which is impossible. Collecting taxes, therefore, is not only reasonable toward combating a foreign attacker, but is just in that it seeks to combat a threat to the homeland, one which poses potential harm to every man, woman and child. My burden of proof has been fulfilled. There are more arguments I intend to make, but considering that my opponent has already forfeited and is likely to forfeit again, I will for now withhold them. 1.http://tinyurl.com... 2.http://tinyurl.com... 3.http://tinyurl.com... 4.http://tinyurl.com...