BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bashar al-assad should stay in power.

Let me first state that by me being for the SA (Syrian Army) and Bashar al-assad, I am in no way saying that they are good or bad--that isn't the debate--I am simply saying that out of the two sides, those who support the SA and the government and those who don't, the SA and the stability of the Syrian government is the better choice. Furthermore I suppose I should mention that I do not believe in the FSA, but such topics will be discussed later on, opponent-willing. By accepting the debate you will be Con, against the Syrian government and must provide an argument for your beliefs accordingly. Your beliefs must consist of the actions that Bashar is removed from power and the FSA takes charge. The main debate itself will be focused on which is better for the Syrian people, Bashar al-assad or the FSA? Good luck.
Mandatory Schooling

I have never said not going to school will kill you, and I also never said if you go to school til year 12 you will be fine. What I said was that there is a better chance of living if people go to school since school can build a strong foundation of learning. School can help you a lot just in case your plans fail. And you have just proven yourself wrong. Steve Jobs dropped out of college not high school. College is not required in the law in the United States. It is only mandatory to go to school until about 17 years old. So Steve Jobs did take mandatory schooling which help him tremendously when he was older. If he hadn't even taken middle school, then I bet he wouldn't have been successful. I think I heard of Steve Jobs more than you. People who are successful and drop out of school is only a small percentage of people. It is less than 1% of the people that dropped out of school. This is very rare so I strongly believe that mandatory schooling is necessary. http://www.experts123.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mandatory Schooling

First of all, you have not clarified if it is only for you or for all people. Not all people have a job when they are young, which mandatory schooling will help them much, much more when they grow up. But I will take it as only you. What I see is that you are working on a game of some sort and selling them. Which can be a great job for you. I am also suspecting that you don't know about the world yet. If you do not have proper education, you are going to have trouble when you grow up. If you don't like this job anymore, you won't be able to switch to a different job when you grow up. Also, even though you will like this job forever, you never know if that job will exist in the future a lot. Some of the jobs that we had several decades ago we don't have now. If this happens to your job, then you won't be able to survive when your a grown up. If you are working on a game, this would be much more of a problem to you. Since computer technology is advancing so fast, your computer skills or programming skills will not be much of a use to you if you did not have proper education when you are old or older. http://www.techcrates.com...
Mandatory Schooling

First of all, your topic is not very clear, but I think you mean schooling should not be mandatory anymore. Why would getting out of school help someone? Some people can't go to school because of money but some can. If you make an income, without going to school, it probably an income that is very low. And how would getting out of school increase your income? And if you don't have proper education, it is going to be very hard to change what you want to do when you grow up. Since mandatory schooling is only up to high school in most areas, if you don't graduate high school, it is hard to do what you want to do. So I believe that people should have mandatory schooling.
George Zimmerman is not racist towards Black People

I am not debating whether or not George Zimmerman was innocent or guilty. I am arguing that George Zimmerman was not racist toward the Black Race.The media, the NAACP, and numerous others are pulling the Racist Card on Zimmerman, but I feel there is no evidence that he is Racist. If you are unbiased in your views, and can hold a source-based discussion, feel free to accept.* Round 1 is for acceptance.** Round 2 - 3 is establishing a case with evidence and sources.*** Round 4 is a conclusion. Using only prior mentioned evidence from rounds 2-3, you conclude your case.The RESOLUTION is simple... George Zimmerman is not racist towards Black people.Because both sides must prove their case, BOP is shared. While I will attempt to prove Zimmerman not Racist towards Black People, the Con must prove he is.
Cats are better than dogs

I would like to refute all of your previous points: 1. Cats not needing to be walked makes them entirely boring. They are a very non-caring, unfun animal. Dogs being walked helps them get exercised and become a healthy pet rather than cats who sleep for 90% of the day and become fat. 2. Those are not gifts that they are bringing you. They are showing you their dominance. They think that they are better than you. Dogs bring you YOUR gifts if they you hunt with them. 3. Cats use kitty litter, which smells absolutely horrid. 4. Dogs do much more. They want to be around you. Whereas cats just sit and wait for you to come to them. 5. I don't see how they are. I'd like a citation for this. 6. This is a matter of opinion. Dogs want to be with you. They want to be tended to. Cats could give less a care. In that way, in my opinion, they are annoying. 7. Dogs are not mean to the guests unless they are viscious. Cats don't want to be around a crowd of people. They hide from your guests - thus proving negligence and being mean. 8. Cats destroy furniture with their claws. Dogs can be destructive but at least the furniture in this one is spared.
Cats are better than dogs

1. Cats don't need to be walked 2. Cats bring you gifts after they go hunting. 3. Cats don't smell as bad. 4. Cats purr. 5. Cats are natural insect repelant. 6. Cats aren't annoying like dogs. 7.Cats aren't mean to your guests. 8. Cats take good care of your stuff. So there you have it, Cats are better than dogs.
Cats are better than dogs

Thank you for this debate. I will be arguing that cats are not better than dogs and that dogs are far more superior. My opponent starts off the debate by stating that cats infect humans with the parasite, toxoplasma gondii and converts humans into cat lovers through it. According to: http://en.wikipedia.org..., this parasite is the most common among humans and does not produce any symptoms except mild flu-like in the small majority of cases. In most healthy human beings, it does not affect them much less convert them into loving these evil feline creatures. Toxoplasma gondii (referencing to my previous link) can also be aquired from any warm-blooded animal if consumed, and I don't know how many people go around consuming cat feces for recreation. While cats do indeed have wonderful reflex abilities and the ability to recover swiftly from minor injuries, dogs have the ability to protect themselves and fend off anything that will cause them to sustain injuries. I concede that cats have the pro of surviving long falls unharmed, however there are many pros to dogs. Dogs come in many shapes and sizes making them vary in terms of ability of self-defense. While cats are hunters themselves, dogs learn to interact with others and humans as well to establish a goal. They are fantastic problem-solvers and quickly learn how to respect and communicate with their owners, whereas cats lack obedience and empathy towards others.
Cats are better than dogs

Cats rule the world by the cat poop parasite, or scientifically known as Toxoplasma gondii. This parasite is formed by an infection in the cat's intestines and then it makes it's way into the cats poop. Even touching the places where the poop has been you get you infected. http://animal.discovery.com......... And it has infected 22.5% of the US population that is 12 and older and 95% of the world! Those found with the parasite have a 1.5 chance of committing suicide. http://www.newser.com......... and http://www.cbsnews.com.......... It also infects ants and makes them stand on the edge of grass so birds will eat them and then it will infect the bird so it won't fly away when cats go after them. It started when Jaroslav Flegr got a strange urge to take care of cats and said, "There's something wrong with me." Since he didn't like cats and all of the sudden got a strange urge to take care of cats. And the T-Gondi parasite kills millions of people each year! http://www.theatlantic.com......... Then there is Cat Scratch Disease which causes mild infection, swollen lymph nodes, fever and fatigue. Cryptosporidiosis causes fever, nausea, cramps, vomiting, and diharria. Hookworm causes intestinal bleeding, inflammation, and abdominal pains. (the link for these are at the bottom of this page titled 10 scary diseases pets can give you. http://www.cbsnews.com.........) Secondly cats have 9 lives compared to the one life of a dog, so obviously 9 lives are better than 1.
Zoos

Here are a couple of reasons why zoo's should not exist. One, zoo's can not provide the amount of space that will be given to the animals in the wild. Did you know that wild cats have about 18,000 times less space in zoos than they do in the wild? And that Polar Bears have about 1 million times less space than in the wild? My second reason is that animals die much more frequently in zoo's than in the wild. About 5000 animals per year die in zoos. Also, about 7,500 animals die per year because they are killed by the zookeepers? And that the only reason that they are killed is because there is 'too much' of that species? Talk about animal cruelty!!! My last reason is that the animals have no say in what is going on. Yes I know that animals can not talk, but that is just the reason. You see, no one can ask them if they want to mate, or what they want to eat. So because they can not tell you, why not just leave them alone? They didn't ask for this!! So do me a favor and vote no on zoos.
The Roast Game Skeptic: Domestic Violence Is Not Even A Real Thing

1."To prove your point that it is a thing." So is Domestic Violence. 2."You questioned and contradicted yourself in these questions. I'm not saying every "crime" does not exist, I am only saying that Domestic Violence is not even a real thing. " This is your contradiction, not mine. You cannot apply your logic consistently else ware concerning other crimes. 3. "Would you necessarily assume that every person should be violent or would you assume that Domestic Violence is a thing? Of course you would" This is a false dichotomy, not everyone need be violent for domestic violence to exist. 4. "Because Domestic Violence isn't a real thing. " You have yet to prove this, you cannot logically use your own conclusion, to support your conclusion. This is circular reasoning. 5. "That is barely an argument at all, just because you use the definition and that's it, doesn't necessarily make it a strong argument" Yet, your argument is presented without evidence, and domestic violence as defined, does occur. You would need to eliminate at least one of the following: Familial units Domiciles Violence 6. "It is too late to bring sources, you plagiarised. You should've put a source in your first argument round. You didn't, therefore, I have evidence that you plagiarised. " My first post: " I am using the US Department of Justice's definition of domestic violence." 7. "Definition is barely evidence at all because any definition alone is forged for people to get barely a glimpse of anything in a skewed perspective. " Domestic violence as defined, does occur. https://www.bjs.gov... 8. "Here I quote, " just because you can define something, doesn't necessarily make it a real thing. You can define The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it is still not even a real thing." It is a good example, you can't just call everything the dictionary defines as real or fact." This is a false comparison, domestic violence as defined, occurs in reality. http://www.azdhs.gov... You haven't furthered any evidence to suggest that violence between family members, or violence within households doesn't occur. Without this, it would be false to state domestic violence doesn't exist.
The Roast Game Skeptic: Domestic Violence Is Not Even A Real Thing

"Domestic Violence is a fallacy because it doesn't happen in "every house" or it didn't happen at all." Why would Domestic Violence need to occur in every household in order to exist? Can you apply this logic to other crimes? Do traffic violations for instance, not exist, as not everyone commits one? "But just because not all men or women are violent, doesn't necessarily make Domestic Violence a real thing." Why would the existence of non-violent humans eliminate the possibility of domestic violence? There is no reason to believe this, simply because some humans are not violent, does not eliminate violence committed by others. "You would suggest, not that you will believe that Domestic Violence indeed "does exist" This is an irrelevant argument. " Your issue with this phrasing is irrelevant, my argument is that domestic violence does exist. "Just because you're an American, it doesn't necessarily make that a valid argument. " Nor do I suggest it does, I am merely clarifying my perspective. Each culture and country has a different take on domestic violence. "You did not put a link or a source in your first argument, though you said you would use their definition. You could've backed your argument up. You plagiarised the definition of "Domestic Violence." You will lose a lot of points if you plagiarize." I actually do state the source, the Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov...
The Roast Game Skeptic: Domestic Violence Is Not Even A Real Thing

Thanks for accepting the challenge. Here is my argument that Domestic Violence isn't even a real thing, though somehow you can define it. But, just because you can define something, doesn't necessarily make it a real thing. You can define The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and it is still not even a real thing. If somebody believed that all men or all women are violent, that is sexist. Sexism is unacceptable. Domestic Violence is a fallacy because it doesn't happen in "every house" or it didn't happen at all. I am skeptical of your claims. Feminists and MRAs have been spreading this fallacy called "Domestic Violence" for a long time. But just because not all men or women are violent, doesn't necessarily make Domestic Violence a real thing. Let me quote you. "I am an American, so I am using the US Department of Justice's definition of domestic violence. Domestic Violence: Is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. This is then further defined by State, in my State of Arizona, many laws can be considered domestic violence and is dependent on the victim. But a basic summary would be: The state of Arizona defines domestic violence as almost any criminal act of abuse committed by one "family or household member" against another. As crime between household members occurs, I would suggest that domestic violence does indeed exist." You would suggest, not that you will believe that Domestic Violence indeed "does exist" This is an irrelevant argument. Just because you're an American, it doesn't necessarily make that a valid argument. I am an American too, I am skeptical of Domestic Violence. You did not put a link or a source in your first argument, though you said you would use their definition. You could've backed your argument up. You plagiarised the definition of "Domestic Violence." You will lose a lot of points if you plagiarize.
The Roast Game Skeptic: Domestic Violence Is Not Even A Real Thing

I am an American, so I am using the US Department of Justice's definition of domestic violence. Domestic Violence: Is a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner. This is then further defined by State, in my State of Arizona, many laws can be considered domestic violence and is dependent on the victim. But a basic summary would be: The state of Arizona defines domestic violence as almost any criminal act of abuse committed by one "family or household member" against another. As crime between household members occurs, I would suggest that domestic violence does indeed exist.
Gay marriage should be legal.

First off, marriage certificates are usually handed out via the ULC, or Universal Life Church. Meaning, at the end of it all, marriage goes through the church at some point. It is a process created by the church, and most of the time the church is the group who weds people. It is silly to say otherwise, while a court can grant a marriage, most marriages in America still take place in a church. Also, the validity and legality of the government controlling how marriage is run is something we are still in debate of. Many disapprove of the government being in control of marriage and a lot of people prefer smaller governments with more control by private sectors. The simple fact, is that marriage is always created by some religion or another, and none of the religions followed today approve of it. One would imagine the people who create it would have a good idea of how it should be run, if you disagree with a scientist on physics, you cant run and ask the guy at the gas station about gravity and if you disagree about marriage with the church, you cant run to a politician and try to get it made legal. One last thing, you said if the rights of people are not disturbed, then why not make it legal? Well in that case, people should be able to marry anything, from a towel to their dog. It is a slippery slope that will only end in madness. Not only that, but it will also raise medical insurance premiums, I would rather not get too detailed on why it's bad, but anal sex does lead to a lot more diseases and with health care being as messed up as it is, this could be the final straw that breaks the horse's back.
Gay marriage should be legal.

I will take this opportunity to address my opponent's case. Some things to take note of: Firstly, the church is entirely separate from the government (ergo the establishment and free exercise clauses). Just as the government has no right to encroach upon the church, the church has no right to encroach upon the government. As such, legality is not contingent upon church approval or disapproval. Laws are not dictated by the church just as the church is not dictated by the law. Secondly, marriage is recognized by the government -and it is regulated. While marriage may have originated as a religious institution it is not now, in a legal sense. It is a contractual one -one within the legislative reach of the government. My opponent's case: RC1) The church's right to discriminate is not challenged, undermined, or in any way jeopardized by the legalization of gay marriage. Marriage, in a legal sense, can be performed in a court house, by a magistrate or by an ordained minister who has been given the authority by the state to marry people. Because the church and the government are and ought to be separate, legalizing gay marriage does not require the church to recognize gay marriage or perform them. RC2) Yes, the bible says a lot of things. Just like my opponent has already pointed out, the government and the church are entirely distinct entities. Legalizing gay marriage does not jeopardize that condition.
Gay marriage should be legal.

I want to get a few things across before I begin. 1. The church is a private organization and the U.S government is not at all affiliated with their views or their actions. 2. Because they are private, the government has no right to encroach on their decisions. C1: The church has the right to discriminate if it so chooses, even if you disagree You can talk about the rights that our founding fathers wanted for us, but if the church refuses to marry people, which is 100% within their rights to deny people by the way, nobody can stop them. You talked about how this is not an argument over if the government should recognize marriage or not, and you would be right, except if the don't want people to discriminate, then they should run it themselves. The church is separate from the government as dictated by the founding fathers and thus can make the decisions on who they allow to get married. The state can create new churches that work differently, but the key fact is that you can not force the church to do something it does not want to. C2: The bible directly says in the Leviticus section, that being gay is in fact a sin, just as combing your hair and eating shellfish is. You can call the church hypocrites if you would like, but their book directly says that gay people are sinners. Why gay people even go to a place that calls them evil and says they will be tossed in a volcano for all eternity is beyond me, but the fact is, the book they base their operations on says that gay people are not welcome. As a private affiliation they have the right to say whatever they want and be hypocrites. They are not forced to be morally comprehensive, even if they should be. It does not matter if you disagree with them or not, you can not force them to do something that they are against. If it bothers you so much, write to your politician and try to overturn marriage as a whole because that is the only real way to get that across.
Gay marriage should be legal.

To begin, this is not a debate over wether government ought to recognize the institution of marriage. The resolution states that gay marriage should be legal. If something is recognized as legal it is recognized by the government. Secondly, this is not a debate about wether government should incentivize marriage or wether gay couples should enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. The resolution speaks exclusively to legality; nothing more. Legality, for our purposes, is only the ability to do something without punishment or incentive designed to hinder any given act. Gay marriage should be legal. A. Only acts that encroach upon the life, liberty, or property of another should to be illegal. Our founding fathers wrote that government ought be charged with three essential tasks: preserving our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). People, by the virtue of their humanity, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ownership of property), and are entitled to enjoy them to the fullest possible extent unless or until their enjoyment hampers another's enjoyment of their rights. In essence, my rights end where yours begin. It is from this principal that the American concept of equality is derived. Where the object is to uphold natural rights, the task of government then (in domestic terms) is only to make illegal those acts which are not germane to natural rights, their preservation, or enjoyment thereof by all people. If any act by any individual or third party encroaches on the enjoyment of anyone else's rights, that act ought be illegal because no person has the right to deprive another of their rights without consent or without just cause. B. Gay marriage does not jeopardize the life, liberty, or enjoyment of property of another. Marriage, in essence, is a contractual agreement whereby two consenting parties agree to share their lives together. It is an institution that requires consent of two adults; traditionally centered upon either romance or utility or both for both people who marry one another. There has been no substantial indication that gay marriage is harmful to any member of society, wether we consider society as a whole, individuals, children, or those who should desire to marry one another. There is accordingly no conflict with any individual's enjoyment of life, liberty, or property in any way, shape, or form. As such, gay marriage should not be illegal. If something is not illegal, then it is legal. Ergo, gay marriage should be legal.