BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cats an immoral choice of pet

My colleague is woefully misinformed about our dear, beloved pussycat. Pussycats can sit in your lap for hours being stroked and doctors have said pussycats relieve tension, stress, which doctors everywhere warn can kill you. http://www.heartmdinstitute.com... It has been proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt that terminal patients have elevated their quality of life by having a little pussycat to stroke and be there for them. http://psychcentral.com... Finally, pussycat purring has been shown to be for healing, happiness and to connect the pussycat to us. http://pets.webmd.com...
Cats an immoral choice of pet

To my most esteemed colleague, just to ensure we're on the same page we are talking about cats not the the circular aluminium containers which, possibly unfairly, are rarely seen as a popular choice of pet. Cats are evil my friend, efficient furry murderers, stalking their prey with great abandon, often laying their latest victim at the feet of their feeder, a gift? or simply a trade for more of the food they feel they are unfairly withheld. Cats are loyal! you feed them, I'd be interested how loyal they would be if given only board and sent into the wild to collect their own lunch! http://www.independent.co.uk... Regarding the joys of owning a cat, undoubtedly petting or scratching a cat can give you, the petting initiator much pleasure, this is no reflection on the cats apparent morality, not the morality regarding your ownership of one. Most people will undoubtedly enjoy having a pet there when they get home, this I do not doubt, merely that their choice is the feral uncaring kitty, the gargoyle of the garden, the hairy hunter, I say to you that gardens everywhere would be greatly improved by the increase in the beauty of birdsong, arms would undoubtedly be less scared,and front gardens would contain less smelly surprises if that evil creature were no longer the popular pet it is today!
Cats an immoral choice of pet

To my esteemed colleague and the gentlemen who shall be reading and judging, in their own little minds, the veracity and circumspection of this most august debate topic, which is: Can an immoral choice of pet. It was not long ago that I asked myself that very same question, "Can an immoral choice of pet?" and I said no, to myself. You see, I am three tenths part can myself. It was my great grandfather thrice removed, that was a full blooded Can. So consider myself an expert on all Can topics. This is of course the very astute Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Thank you. I quite often am a strict and apt scholar of Argumentum ad antiquitatem, and so it is that I have presented here today. No applause necessary, nor appreciated. But let's delve deep into the topic at hand on Cans. My colleague has erroneously concluded, without a shred of evidence, whatsoever, that Cans often prey upon wildlife and run feral through the trees. And thus he concludes that the ownership of a Can is tantamount to murder, THE most immoral act there is in all of Christendom. This of course is argumentum ad absurdum. A notion so ridiculous, that it stops my heart from beating, just pondering the depth of such intellectual dishonesty as to even dare villify our beloved Cans, in such a manner. Let me be very clear on this point. Cans are loyal, always there for you. If you set a Can, come hell or come high water, it will be there for you. Everyone knows this. It's illogical to say anything to the contrary. It's just an exercise in futility Why just the other day, I was over my friends house and there was this beautiful Can. I just couldn't help myself, in two seconds, I grabbed it was singing to it, dancing around his living room, which has the most excellent decor you couldn't possibly imagine. So there he was, a big side of beef of a man, fuming at me to put his Can down. I think he was jealous or something, the way he was carrying on, surprisingly great dancer, even with all of that weight on him, he could slide across a floor like he was floating. Well, I set that Can down, right on the counter. Do you know, a week later I stopped by and there it was, sitting right in the exact same spot I had put it. And you know, sometimes in the wee hours of the morning, when you can't sleep, you can go get your Can to keep you company. I even once had a conversation with a Can. Of course it didn't say a word, but you know, when I got up, I felt better and relaxed. Think of all the lonely people out there that need Cans. They could do well to have one. There would probably be less violence if everyone just got a Can.
The Federal Reserve monetary policy was largely responsible for the Financial Crisis of 2008

Having ten minutes to post my argument, as my podiatrist appointment went on for too long, I'll just do the CiRrk method of debate by quoting.Interest RateThe Federal Reserve made it possible for banks to operate with a far lower percentage of reserves than ever before. Whereas in a free market, banks would hold gold reserves equal to their checking deposits — or at the very least to a substantial proportion of their checking deposits — the Federal Reserve in recent years contrived to make it possible for them to operate with irredeemable fiat-money reserves of less than 2 percent. [1] To keep recession away, the Federal Reserve lowered the Federal Funds Rate 11 times - from 6.5% in May 2000 to 1.75% in December 2001 - creating a flood of liquidity in the economy. Cheap money, once out of the bottle, always looks to be taken for a ride. It found easy prey in restless bankers - and even more restless borrowers who had no job, no assets. These subprime borrowers wanted to realize their life's dream of acquiring a home. For them, holding the hands of a willing banker was a new ray of hope. More home loans, more home buyers, more appreciation in home prices. It wasn't long before things started to move just as the cheap money wanted them to. [3] HousingAs matters have turned out, the Federal Reserve got its wish for a negative real rate of interest, but to an extent far beyond what it wished. It wished for a negative real rate of return of perhaps 1 to 2 percent. What it achieved in the housing market was a negative real rate of return measured by the loss of a major portion of the capital invested. In the words of The New York Times, "In the year since the crisis began, the world's financial institutions have written down around $500 billion worth of mortgage-backed securities. Unless something is done to stem the rapid decline of housing values, these institutions are likely to write down an additional $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion." [2][1] http://mises.org...[2] Joe Nocera, "Shouldn't We Rescue Housing?" October 18, 2008, p. B1. [3] http://www.investopedia.com...
The Federal Reserve monetary policy was largely responsible for the Financial Crisis of 2008

Resolved:The Federal Reserve monetary policy was largely responsible for the Financial Crisis of 2008I am CON.Debate rules: 1. No semantics.2. First Round for acceptance and rule clearification only.3. No new arguments in the last round.4. Text-only debate.5. All source material must be easily accessable Definitions:Federal Reserve - The US central reserve bank.http://en.wikipedia.org......Monetary policy - the contraction and expanansion of fiat money through certain mechanisms. These include open markt operations, changes in reserve requirements, and changine the interest rate on the discount window. largely responsible - the main cause or blame for an event.
Jeff Bridges is one of the most under-appreciated actors

My argument concerning Phillip Seymour Hoffman was merely to address that Bridges is not as under appreciated as other actors in cinema today. Though Bridges deserves a great deal of credit of for his roles in some excellent films, none of his films took the "epic" stance that you noted in your first argument. You mentioned DeNiro, Brando, Pacino and Nicholson in the as hollywood's best, and that Bridges should be classified with them. Bridges' acting is separate from the category you asserted above. The above 4 mentioned have all starred in mainstream, action/suspense movies that have turned into classics. DeNiro had Raging Bull, Brando and Pacino both had the Godfather, Pacino also had Scarface, and Nicholson had the Shining. Unfortunately, as good as the "the Big Lebowski" was, the movie doesn't classify in the category of movies DeNiro and folk would fit in. Further, Bridges' acting would not be underappreciated when he is put into the right perspective. I could argue how DeNiro and friends are not anywhere near "Hollywoods best", it's a matter of perspective in what genres of film I would classify as "the best". What if I enjoy creative comedies as "the best?" A new list of best actors comes to minds. Should The Big Lebowski become the legacy of Bridges, his fame could be categorized in the group of cult film classic actors, like Bruce Campbell or Tim Curry. This wouldn't be a bad thing necessarily, their roles were just never the forefront of the mainstream moviegoer. And from there, he can be appreciated as one of Hollywood's best. Perhaps the cult film classics doesn't fit. Then his role in Starman could be paralleled to Robin Williams' role in Bicentennial Man, John Travolta for his play in Micheal, or Anthony Hopkins and Brad Pitt for their positions in Meet Joe Black. These are all phenomenal actors, and Bridge's work puts him into this category. In the end, it's a matter of perspective depending on what movies you remember someone for. Bridges deserves every bit of credit for his acting, and should be remembered for his legend roles. I argue that he IS remembered and appreciated for his acting, but it needs to be put into the right perspective. He can't be remembered the way Al Pacino and Brando are remembered because he DIDNT act in anything parallel to them, but that doesn't make him under appreciated, just different.
Jeff Bridges is one of the most under-appreciated actors

Light hearted indeed. First of all I am a huge fan of Luis Guzman, any fan of Paul Thomas Anderson would be. Secondly, whereas you make good points none of them speak to the issue at hand. You simply addressed the number of roles Bridges has had, and the types of roles Bridges has had, (in the context of his comparison to the great Phillip Seymour Hoffman) but you never addressed whether or not he was under-appreciated. You never addressed film-goers attitude and view of him. Role types and the numbers of films you have starred in dont speak to in the least bit audience goers and critics feelings about that person. So to take another underappreciated actor (I would argue that critics have already espoused their love for him, and film goers are catching up) in Hoffman in order to measure Bridges, it doesnt make sense. Its like saying the Dodgers dont suck the way you say they do because the Giants suck worse. The conversation wasnt "who is the only sucky team," nor now is it who is the only underappreciated actor. Ask people to rattle of Hollywood's best. They will give you DeNiro, Brando, Pacino, Nicholson. I think its high time Jeff Bridges is in that category.
Jeff Bridges is one of the most under-appreciated actors

Hey Luna3, It's nice to have a light-hearted debate every once in a while. I like Jeff Bridges a lot, I thought K-PAX was excellent. But, I am on the side that he is not an under appreciated actor and I shall challenge you with the following assertion. There are totally more under appreciated actors out there, and for the purposes of this debate, I look towards Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Now, if we start out with the raw numbers, according to IMDB.com, Jeff Bridges has stared in at least 30 movies or televisions shows since 1990, whilst Phillip Seymour Hoffman has stared in 46. This seems, at first, like Bridges is given less movies to start in... but let's look closer at this past 20 year period. In more than 2/3 of Bridges' appearances, Jeff played a main character or lead role. At the minimum, you'll find his name on the front cover. Let's consider Hoffman's record. He has been the main character for barely a third of all of his appearances. Further, Hoffman was, like Bridges, an actor in The Big Lebowski... But, unlike Bridges, no one gave a damn about his part in it. Hoffman's talent as an actor is completely underrated and a majority of his appearances are treated as "enter side character X". He is as versatile an actor as Anthony Hopkins, but gets the credit reserved for Luis Guzman (see if you know who that guy is!). Bridges gets lead roles in romantic comedies where he gets the girl, and Hoffman gets hammered with roles where he's either being a key jackass or where he might as well be slitting his wrists (for more information, see Love Liza). This is not to say that Bridges is a bad actor... Merely to say that Bridge's career is marked with roles where he is the main protagonist that everyone loves. Meanwhile, other incredible actors, like Hoffman, are given the dreg roles, like getting lit on fire in Red Dragon.
Jeff Bridges is one of the most under-appreciated actors

Jeff Bridges is one of the most under-appreciated actors. He should be in the same category as a DeNiro, Nicholson, and Pacino. Perhaps the only reason he is not is because of his role choices -they seemed less "epic." Bridges, as far as I know, is the only actor to have played both an alien (Starman) and an alien's mental health doctor (X-PAX) just one of many stunning displays of diversity. His filmography is as good as any A List actor in Hollywood's history, namely Big Lebowski, Fearless and Starman.
PETA is, as an organizatioon, not good.

1. ) It is true that I cannot fully invalidate my opponents source. However, the "facts," provided by this website seem quite unlikely. For example PETA taking in those animals. This is unlikely because PETA is not a rescue organization. They do help animals when they are in need but really no further than that. At the very least this information is distorted, or my opponent would have provided links to other, more reliable news sources. Also my opponent has no way to verify the claim about their income, as he cannot know why each and every person donated their money. 2. ) There are many problems with this argument. One the autopsy was, as stated by my opponent, "one of the dogs," and so cannot necessarily apply to them all. Also this source is questionable, as it is off of a website made up of essays and papers. For the second part of this argument my opponent appears to have made a mistake in the final sentence. "However, PETA must have been aware of the purchase of the van, and most likely its purchase. " He said that PETA would have been aware of the purchase twice. What I believe my opponent to have meant was the vans purpose. This, is not necessarily true. 3. ) They do not say one way or another. However, I did find this quote "[our mission is] to provide a "sensitive alternativeï¿½" for pet owners. We promise to treat your pet with the dignity and respect they deserve. " I doubt that their mission would be accomplished through the means that yo are suggesting. 4. ) I am not trying to defend ELF, I am simply saying that their mission is a noble one. My opponent can not prove that the individual people had previous offenses. Summary: Argument 1- My ground is that the claims do not make sense. Argument 2- The only source you have for this one is a website of essays and papers, you did not provide any testimonials. Argument 3- Even if this is true it proves nothing. Especially seeing as the Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater treats all of the animals with respect and dignity. Argument 4- The wrong things for the right reason. PETA used purely mathematical means. I would like to end by thanking my opponent for this debate and the viewers for their time.
PETA is, as an organizatioon, not good.

Rebuttals of rebuttals: 1.) Do you have any direct evidence disqualifying it? You can't disprove my source on your gut or feeling that it's questionable. And even if they aren't an adoption organization, they take in animals. What's your source on "It is unlikely that they would take in healthy, adoptable animals in"? And the fact that PETA has a large amount of money was meant to show that they could get the animals they take in adopted, but don't. 2.) An autopsy was performed on one of the dogs, and they found that it was healthy before it was killed. [1] However, PETA must have been aware of the purchase of the van, and most likely its purchase. 3.) See above on your argument that my source in invalid. Provide me a quote on "they only have individual cremations" and I will accept that rebuttal. 4.) What about the assault of a cabinet official? What about the burning of a councilman's car? And not to mention the destruction of federal property and burglary. Also, I would like to mention this quote from http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com... "Jail time for repeat offenses or felony charges." The North American Earth Liberation Front fits both. Summary of rebuttals of rebuttals. Argument 1 - This claim is supported sufficiently, as you have no ground upon which to dismiss the source. Argument 2 - The autopsy and the testimonials from the adoption workers show that the people didn't lie. Argument 3 - The claim was supported sufficiently, as you have no ground upon which to dismiss my claim. Argument 4 - NAELF committed several serious crimes, as well as repeating the more minor ones. Point - I meant to inquire whether the number was reached by purely mathematical means (IE: A cat can have X kittens over Y period of time) or if it took the fact that many of the kittens would die, preventing them from having kittens. http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com...
PETA is, as an organizatioon, not good.

Rebuttals: 1. ) First I must call into question the validity of my opponents source and then, as a result, his entire argument. His source seems quite questionable. Very similar to those conspiracy theory blogs. One of the reasons for this is a major loophole in the claim. PETA is not an adoption organization. It is a animal rights organization. It is unlikely that they would take in healthy adoptable animals in. Even less likely, euthanize them. As for the supporters/income, I hardly think that PETA is getting that much money from someone who does not support them. 2. ) I would like to ask my opponent, in response to his asking my source, where is his source for all of the autopsies? I say again in response to the corpse dumping, a few employees do not represent and entire organization. 3. ) Again as with most of the other arguments, I must call into question the validity of "petakillsanimals. com. " How do we know if Mrs. Newkirk said that? Also, the Pet Cremation Services of Tidewaters entire message is sensitivity and dignity towards the animals. I am not exactly sure but judging by their website it seems as though they only have individual cremations. [1] 4. ) One could argue that these are all good things. You seem to want animal rights just as much as I do, what place are animals treated worse than in slaughterhouses? As for the ELF, these acts were all for the protection of the environment. If you are pro or con environmental protection is a completely separate debate. All I am saying is that their cause is noble. They are radicals, just like PETA. They are willing to do extreme things for the right cause. Almost all, not all, of the crimes committed during the protests, are vandalism. Vandalism is a wide variety of things most of them I do not consider to be a serious crimes because people who commit it usually do not get any jail time. [2] Summary: Argument 1-This claim is not supported sufficiently. Argument 2-Not necessarily. The people could have perhaps (gasp) lied. Argument 3-As with Argument 1 this claim is not supported sufficiently. Argument 4-I did not say that they were good, they were not penalized. Does my opponent mean to say that some would die during the surgery, or during birth? What those numbers mean is that if every animal spayed or neutered doesn't have the offspring, that number of animals is prevented from being born so the variable of the litter does not matter. Sources: 1=. http://www.petcremation.com... 2=. http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...
On the Existence of the Judeo-Christian God

I would like to acknowledge that I am Christian, although I will take no offense in any insult towards my religion. However, I must point out that none of his points are really backed up with evidence. So how would I know what Inconsistency in religious "experiences" mean? I need some examples, evidence, whatever. However, I can prove that there is historical evidence for biblical events. Was Noah's flood miraculous enough? In an ancient myth of Babylon. The dimensions of the ship was much the same, and Utnapishtim was clearly similar to Noah. The two stories can be compared to a great depth. In Islam, there is a great flood story even more similar. How could Judaism get to Babylon? The chances are neigh. There are really many stories of this, including Sumerian, Babylonian (Epic of Gilgamesh), Jewish, Islamic, Asia-Pacific, China, Lao (Indochina), India, Andaman Islands, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Greek, Ogyges, Deucalion, Dardanus, From The Theogony of Apollodorus, Germanic, Irish,Finnish, Aztec, Caddo, Hopi, Inca, Maya, Mapuche, Menominee, Mi'kmaq, Polynesian. Is that enough for you? As for differences in biblical interpretation, there really is no point to addressing this. The Bible was created 2000 years ago. There must be more than one way to interpret it. You find slightly different distortions in every religion. The rest of my opponent's speech is really opinionated, and I need examples before I refute this.
On the Existence of the Judeo-Christian God

The Judeo-Christian God does not exist. This is shown in a number of ways, including: Intercessory prayer does not work Ne evidence in Jesus's existence No historical evidence for biblical events (miraculous ones) Scientific inaccuracy of the bible Literary analysis of the bible Differences in belief between religions/creation of "sects" Differences in biblical interpretation Inconsistency in religious "experiences" I am aware that I have not expounded on any of these points. I would challenge my opponent to offer his own evidence on why God does exist, especially if it contradicts any of the points I make. If he/she wants more detail on any of these points, just ask.
Drinking Age

I'm sure if people who are the age of 18 can make some responsible choices in their lives. If they are able to fight in combat for our freedom they can make the decision of where they want to go to college and what they want to do for the rest of their lives. I also have faith, like with people that are 21, that people who are 18 can make responsible choices as to how much they drink and how to do so responsibly.
Drinking Age

If people of all ages can't handle alcohol 21 or 18 then why have alcohol he legal at all? Whether the age of drinking is 21 or 18 humans will make irresponsible choices all the times because no one is perfect. Are 21 year olds believed to have more trust that they can make more responsible choices than 18? If so then why not extend the age to 21 for being able to fight in war?
Drinking Age

This fact is true but are lives also not lost on the battlefield of men and women who risk their lives for us at 18 and above? It is obviously irresponsible for people to drink and drive under the influence no matter what age. However if a person at 18 years old is willing to lay down his life for our freedom, why should he/she not be able to have a alcoholic beverage when they return home safely to their friends and families?
Drinking Age

Although you are able to go into the army at the age of 18 I feel as though too many lives are taken each year by not just underage drinking but drinking of all ages. Thousands and thousands of people from all ages die each year from not only drunk driving but drunk drivers hitting other innocent people. Also alcohol is the cause to a disease that many people around the world suffer from. Why should the drinking age be lowered if people over the age of 21 can't even handle it?