BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rodeo

Thanks for your response, Pro. As for your videos, it is the animals nature to attack an enemy to prevent another attack. Enemy: http://dictionary.reference.com... Rebuttal 1: Regarding the use of "adult animals" First, I'd like for you to notice that adult animals are not the only animals being used in rodeo. For example, Calf Roping [2]. Most bucking horses used in rodeo are between the ages of two and six, which although full grown, are by all accounts mentally immature. An injury or particularly traumatic event happening before the horse is mature can scar them and remove their chances of moving on to a different equine sport (Dressage, Stadium Jumping, Barrel Racing, etc.). A horse that cannot do anything because an incident in the past has made them dangerous is often sent to slaughter. Argument extended. Rebuttal 2: Regarding the use of whips In a typical ranching situation, like you mentioned, the goal is to slowly and gently move the animals forward to a marked spot [2]. In the case of rodeo, the goal is to get the animals to quickly and erratically move forward, a rancher's nightmare. Also, if they must use whips, tazers, etc, the animal would rather stand still, and are not in fact "Born to Buck" [3]. Rebuttal 3: The difference between movies and rodeos is that one has special effects, and is preformed by rationally thinking people, and one isn't. This renders your comparison unreliable. Rebuttal 4: Regarding rodeos being successful economically Yes, rodeos attract lots of spectators and fans, but so do drug dealers and prostitutes. Your mindset is a potentially dangerous one with that kind of mindset. Regarding the quotation: The main difference between Thomas Edison's testing and rodeo is that one saved lives. Rodeo serves no purpose in humanity. [4] [1] Calf roping http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] Cattle Herding http://www.grandin.com... [3] "Born to Buck" http://www.flyingurodeo.com... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Rodeo

(This is my first debate to post, pardon if I screw something up. Please tell me [politely] in the comments section.) My stand on rodeo is that it's cruel and abusive (con). If you disagree with me, you think that it is a good sport (pro). I'll gladly debate with you on whatever topics you can even begin to come up with as long as they fall under the subject of rodeo cruelty.
Red apples are superior to green apples.

I must say that blood has that metal taste that is very satisfying when you're stressed. Red also evokes anger which can be good while eating a hard apple because it'll make it easier to bite into. Red is the color of luck in some cultures. People naturally pick the color red because it grabs our attention and appears to be nearer. Red symbolizes strength, warmth, energy, masculinity, and excitement. Green, on the other hand, is weak. The color is perceived as too bland and boring. It can also indicate stagnation.
Red apples are superior to green apples.

First off, green apples taste good due to the human appeal of contrasting flavors. Secondly, red is the color of blood, which does not taste good. This is compelling evidence for green apple supremacy. Furthermore, red apples are too embarrassed to be sold in a store, hence their redness. Their embarrassment will be transferred to us and we will struggle in our social life. Also, if you drop a red apple on the floor, it will not bounce six times; green apples, being like balls, will, and humans like bouncy balls. Checkmate, red apple supremacists.
Call of Duty Should be Used to Teach Preschool students.

Are you serious? I hope that this is sarcastic, and I'm featured on r/facepalm Call of Duty is rated Teen/Mature for a reason. It is a violent game with complex and suggestive themes. Not only does it feature murder and betrayal, but also war and violence in general. If you would please elaborate on your thesis, I can produce a MUCH LONGER response. I look forward to this debate. Good luck.
A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives.

1) I will give you that it is POSSIBLE that I won because I was funny, but not necessarily the case. You provide only shallow analysis on the topic yourself. You don't account for the poor argumentation by opponent and the inability of my opponent to comprehend the point of the debate. You see, you have to look at all aspects of the debate before you can just make a blatant statement such as, "A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives." 2) First of all, you don't really address my ridiculous debates argument and I would just like to point that out. Secondly, the "lazy" people you mentioned before wouldn't be willing to read the entire round if they are that lazy and would probably just read the topic and vote. Those who are willing to read the round out entirely would be willing to vote on their analysis. If I unfairly won that debate, it's because people agree with me on the topic, but didn't read the argumentation. The two comments on my debate prove nothing. Although it is more likely that they voted for me, they never said who they voted for. Furthermore, they may have voted for me because my opponent didn't get the point of the debate, which was meant to be funny, friendly bantering between both sides. And since my opponent didn't debate the point of the topic, they may have voted the side who actually had debated the topic. You have proved nothing my friend. All you have done is given a very shallow analysis of my debate, trying to sway it in your favor. If you look at that debate, I may have added humor, but I also put more effort into the round and was unfairly attacked in my opponent's final speech. If you look at the round as a whole, I was the better debater and that is why I won. If people actually read through the entire debate, they will vote on who they believe is the better debater and thus humor has nothing to do with the outcome. I thank you for all your time.
A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives.

1) It's entirely possible (and probably the case) that there were votes based on your reasons, but you using Manbearpig and comparing it to Hillary Clinton, is funny (as is your debate) and that could also be a reason that people voted for you. 2) It's possible that humor can still play a role, even if the debate is about a serious issue. Especially if some people are too lazy to analyze it all, they may just vote for the funnier person. Also, to look at the debate (the manbearpig one), people comment that "CON has no sense of humor!", etc. possibly leading them to vote against him because he took a joke debate seriously, and you treated it with the correct sense of humor. Thus, the sense of humor can affect the number of votes either one of you received, proving my point. "A debater's sense of humor CAN ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives." ^ This is the issue at hand, and "CAN" is emphasized because it means, "it is possible that a debater's sense of humor will ultimately affect the number of votes." Which I have proved.
A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives.

1) To clear up some of the confusion, I'm the debater that is winning in the debate that you used as an example in your first speech. This is where my argumentation is coming from. 2) If it is a ridiculous debate, such as the one in question, then the better argument is the funnier one, but it's still the better argument. I see where you are going with with this argument, but if it is a serious debate, then humor doesn't play a role and usually the better debater will win. Therefore, no matter the debate, the better argument always wins. The humor just makes it more interesting to read. If you look at the debate in question and the arguments posted by the two debaters, the better debater, who obviously has the better arguments, wins the round. Thank you
A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives.

Sorry, I didn't know you already had a debate like this. (I suppose you accepted this one because you won the other one XD) Thanks for accepting. 1) Can you post a link to that debate, since I can't find it in your debates? It would help me alot with this point (as I can't rebut without looking at the circumstances). 2) If you say argumentation should be purely funny in a ridiculous debate, then you agree that humor can affect the number of votes a debater can receive, because they will vote on the funnier debate.
A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives.

First of all, if I was an uptight debater, I would take this as a personal attack on my debating skills since it is one of my other debates that I participated in. Now on to the argumentation. 1) First of all, although your theory is interesting, I want to direct your attention to the rounds of the debate. If you look, my opponent had forfeited his middle speech and brought forth several arguments that I was unable to refute in his final speech. Maybe the people voting for me meant to vote for me because they saw this exact thing. Also, I said in my second speech and in the comments section after the debate that this was meant to be funny and NOT SERIOUS. Every single debate I've had has been uptight and I was hoping to have an opponent that would do the same thing as me, make a funny debate. However, as I mentioned before, my opponent's forfeit ruined the entire round for my argumentation. I'm pretty sure, if anything, I should be winning the round by a lot more. I believe that a forfeited round should mean an automatic loss, but that's just my opinion. However, the voters of the round may have voted on this. 2) In a debate as ridiculous as Hillary Clinton vs. Manbearpig, the argumentation should be funny and not distracting. If you have ever seen Lewis Black's Root of all Evil, they are able to take similar debates, make them funny, but, nonetheless, they still have decent arguments. The only thing that comes from this debate is that there are too many uptight people, no offense, but they just need to be able to differentiate a joke from a fact. I hope that anyone voting on this sees that my argumentation was ruined in the other debate and that there is a true difference between a joke and real life. If a debater is truly superior, it will show in the argumentation and thus they will win the debate. Thank you
A debater's sense of humor can ultimately affect the number of votes that debater receives.

Definitions from dictionary.com: "sense of humor noun the trait of appreciating (and being able to express) the humorous; "she didn't appreciate my humor"; "you can't survive in the army without a sense of humor" [syn: humor] " "ulï¿½tiï¿½mateï¿½ly Audio Help (ŭl'tə-mĭt-lē) Pronunciation Key adv. At last; in the end; eventually." I don't think anyone will actually accept this debate, but oh well. I am going to prove that using a sense of humor can affect the number of debates a debater receives. 1) http://www.debate.org... As you can see, in the comments section, two people sated that CON had no sense of humor. If you'll notice that PRO is winning only by two votes, there is a possibility that these two people were inclined to vote PRO because he had a good sense of humor, while CON took the debate seriously. 2) A sense of humor can also distract a voter from that debater's actual argument, which may not be good enough to rebut an opponent's points, etc. That voter might then vote for that debater, thinking his or her argument was stronger because it was funnier.
Resolved: Abortion should be Illegal (Except in life threatening cases)

TermsAbortion: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.Rules1. No new arguments in the last round2. Cite all soures3. No trolling4. FF is automatic loss5. Drops are concessionsRound 1 is acceptance, 2 is opening, 3 is rebuttal, 4 is closing
Harry Potter is a superior film and book series than twilight

While yes twilight is a good series because it crosses over Vampire and werewolves, and also a love interest and a sort of rivalry between Edward and Jacob that does not make it better then Harry Potter. It is about a boy named Harry who's parents were killed by Lord Voldemort. While Harry lives with his aunt and uncle and cousin Dudley his live is like hell then he meets Ron and Hermione and throughout the whole series Harry has to stop Lord Voldemort from not only coming back (which he comes back to life in the fourth book and movie) but from killing him as well. and throughout the series Harry deals with many hardships that I'm sure all fans of the series went through as well with Cedric Diggory, the death of Harry's god father Sirius Black (which when harry was screaming that had to cut the audio but it was to gut wrenching) to the Death of the headmaster Albus Dumbledore, the death of Dobby the house elf and even the death of Severus Snape and in the end Harry defeats Lord Voldemort in a final showdown in the school's courtyard. And i won't forget to mention the amazing transformation of Neville Longbottom from the beginning of the series to the end. so my point is Harry Potter has had more onn the edge of your seat and emotional moments then twilight has
The USA and the UK are not all that different.

The factors that my opponent has so far listed about America is very similar to the political system of the UK. The UK has a monarch. However, this fact isn't significant in the law making processes. The most chamber with the most power in the UK parliament is the house of commons, which is an elected body. The monarch has no input on the law making process and this process functions in much the same way as in the USA. In the UK, leaders are elected fro the most part. I eagerly await further arguments from my opponent.
Resolved: K'nex are better than Legos

In this second round of SocialPinko's tournament, I will argue that K'nex are not better than Legos. This means that if I present a case which proves Legos and K'nex to be equal, one is not better than the other, therefore giving me the win. Also, if I may present Legos to be better than K'nex, I will also win. .. .. but a crucial definition that needs to be provided is that of better. For this debate, the following definition of better will be used Better- more advantageous or effective [1] Let the battle of the undefeated's COMMENCE Source 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved: K'nex are better than Legos

This is R2 of Socialpinko's debate tournament.First round for rules/definitions.Rules:1. There are no restrictions on argumentative strategy.2. Burden of proof is shared.3. This debate concerns the resolution:RESOLVED: K'nex are better than Legos.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Rules and Definitions in R1 are binding. Substantively violating the R1 agreements will result in disqualification.6. Spelling/Grammer and Conduct will NOT be voted on unless: a) explicitly argued for in the debate round AND b) voting occurs on the grounds argued for in the debate.7. Sources must be posted in the debate round.Definitions:K'nex - The K'nex brand of children's toy, taken to include the entire line of K'nex product.Legos - The Lego brand of children's toy, taken to include the entire line of Lego product.
Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

This debate is the second round debate between myself and thett3, in the DDO Autumn Regular Tournament. The full resolution is:'In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory for whomever is eligible to vote in that democracy. 'DefinitionsDemocracy: 'a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. ' (1)Voting: '[giving] or [registering] a vote. ' (2)Compulsory: 'required by law or a rule; obligatory. ' (3)Debate StructureR1: AcceptanceR2: Opening argumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: Final rebuttals and closing remarksRules1. No 'kritiks'2. No trolling3. No deviating from the aforementioned debate structure_______________________________________________________-(1) Google: 'Define democracy'(2) Google: 'Define voting' (3) Google: 'Define compulsory'
The Christian god (Yahweh) does not exist

This is a short version of my argument that should get the debate started.Historical Argument Yahweh was not originally a Hebrew deity, in fact he was first worshipped by the Canaanites (who according to the bible were later exterminated by the Jews [1]). The Canaanites often depict a figure sitting on Yahweh's wheeled throne and appeared to have worshiped him as either a storm god or a god of metal work [2].The very fact that Yahweh was worshiped by the polytheistic Canaanites invalidates his existence outright, the very fact that we can see his form change over time into what we now see changes everything about him. Remember an omniscient being cannot change their mind [3].Paradoxical ArgumentThe bible constantly contradicts itself for instance:God can inhabit temples [4], God can't inhabit temples [5].God rests [6], God doesn't rest [7].Yahweh is a god of peace [8], Yahweh is a god of war [9].Murder is banned [10], Yahweh encourages murder [11].God is claimed to be both omniscient [12] and omnipotent [13]. This is logically contradictory as a being that knows everything knows the actions it will take in the future and as such is not free to do anything and therefore has no power to choose what it does.Yahweh is claimed to be both just and merciful [14] this is a contradiction as a being that is truly merciful will pardon even the worst offender but a being that is truly just will punish fairly but surely. [1] Joshua 6 [2] http://jot.sagepub.com... [3] http://carm.org... (longer argument but I doubt there will be too much argument here)[4] 2 Chronicles 7:12-14[5] Acts 7:48[6] Exodus 31:17 [7] Isaiah 40:28[8] Romans 15:33 [9] Exodus 15:3[10] Exodus 20:13[11] Leviticus 20:13[12] Psalm 147:4-5[13] Luke 1:37[14] Psalm 116:5
Should uniforms be at schools

First of all, I can confirm that 90% of uniform items are cheaper than standard clothes that a child might wear at a public school. as far as the sticker, why should children (like I said) be able to distract themselves from learning with commodities as such when education is already a problem in our nation, directly shown in the fact that we are forced to export jobs one because it is cheap labor and two we don't have enough local employees to fill high requirement jobs because school is so often disregarded as a child in today's new generations. Why should you care so much about dress-code if you claim to care so much about education. School is not fashion show, rather a learning environment. when we ease to view it as such, we begin to struggle (as we already have). To be fair, it's not really the dress-code's fault for these "rebellions". it is more the staff, because the allow the students to slip by rather than conforming to the rules. the way to solve this is staying conformed to the dress-code. If you teach the students that infractions are intolerable, then they are less likely to spend time in finding ways to slip by. These attempts are also distractions. All in all, a dress code creates a work-friendly environment and eliminates bullying. The end although we still have one more round Accept your defeat..... :I
Should uniforms be at schools

Dress-code has been adopted by many schools all over the country, and that's for a reason. Quote: "Traditionally favored by private and parochial institutions, school uniforms are being adopted by US public schools in increasing numbers. Almost one in five US public schools required students to wear uniforms during the 2011-2012 school year, up from one in eight in 2003-2004. Mandatory uniform policies in public schools are found more commonly in high-poverty areas. " Pro/Con. org. the biggest reason is to create a education friendly environment, free of distractions that may come with differing clothing. Honestly, if you put children in clothes that they are not interested in, they are likely not to pay attention to them. If you allow them to flow along with the trends, well, they become immersed partially in that among other things they would naturally be interested in that already distract them from learning. Education is vital to the success of the nation, and honestly the US is not doing well in that division right now. The US now ranks 36th in word education. This is honestly pathetic. I don't mean to sound pessimistic in our nation, but its true. We cannot afford to impede learning any more than we are already allowing. Some schools are allowing phones! PHONES! seriously. But back to dress-code. To your point of bullying. It is very much clothes involved. Bully's hate being hypocrites. If I am a bully, am I going to make offensive fun of the person who is wearing basically the same thing as me? No. That's a guaranteed way to have things blow up in your face, and if i were bullied by someone that stupid, i would be laughing rather than backing down. You could argue that uniforms "detract form a students personality", but that is nonsense. If you spend that much time focusing on how you appear to people, i guarantee that you don't spend time on education, which we should all realize has significant impacts on life. :D
Censorship is unnecessary.

Might I also add that Wikipedia can be edited by ANYONE who enters the site. While your opening argument (and mine) were credible, Wikipedia as a whole is not a very credible source, considering it can be edited. ===================================================================== The definition of necessary is something that is essential; such as water. Anything besides water, food, etc. can be considered NOT NECESSARY simply because it is not essential for life to continue. Censorship is not essential for life to continue; however, the studies suggest that censorship is needed for the benefit of the individual. "-Congrats, you have successfully stated your opinion on this matter. I agree that what we watch has an affect on us, HOWEVER this in no way means that censorship is necessary. It may be beneficial to our culture, depending on how you interpret it." While this may come across as simply my opinion, you may want to check the numbers of violence back in the 50s and so on. Violence was simply not shown on the television. Most families only had one television in their home, so parents monitored what their children watched (censorship), the numbers of violence is significantly lower. Go ask one of your parents if there was a lot of violence for them while they were in school, see what they say. So my guarantee was not an opinion, it was fact. Censorship may not be essential to continue life, considering we can certainly survive without it; however, the studies that have been presented show that censorship does present a great benefit. It is essential for the psychological health of our youth, if the TV stations don't censor than parents will, and the majority do any ways; that is their responsibility as parents. But even that is a form of censorship. When children go to school or the library, the computers have a filter to block certain sites (this is censorship). In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for posting this debate. I urge those who read this debate to vote CON, as censorship DOES have benefits. Whether the government chooses to censor something, or parents monitor what their kids watch on their television, censorship is put in place for a reason. If we didn't think it was necessary, then we wouldn't care whether a 4 year old watches an R rated movie, or what kind of music your daughter listens to. We as individuals put censorship into motion for a reason, no, it is not essential to survive. However, it is there for a reason. If it wasn't necessary to some extent, we wouldn't feel the need to use it.