BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dogs and Dolls: Animals should not be forced into clothing.

To reiterate my opponent hasn't address a single argument I made: I will summarize them: -My opponent has shown no evidence that animals that wear clothes have any mental health deficient. As children, there were probably quite a bit of humans that were against wearing clothes, yet we have adapted to the environment -My opponent concedes that the pictures are cute, however believes that these animals were likely happy to wear the clothes. However, these animals might have originally disliked wearing the clothes and were likely conditioned to enjoy or tolerate them. -My opponent has not explained why it is morally wrong to allow animals to be forced to wear clothing yet does not explain her moral stance on: eating meat, experimentation on animals, or farming animals. My opponent should also note that pets are in fact OWNED, which by definition restricts their freedom. Pets are not free to choose what food to eat, or wear to move around. Being forced to wear clothing is just one of the many freedoms pets lose. PRO has to explain why pets can have certain freedoms restricted, but forcing animals to wear clothing somehow is "going to far". PRO again has only made assertions, not evidence that animals are more likely to be mistreated if they are forced to wear clothing. Not only is the information not confirmed, it is also irrelevent. The argument is about whether persons should force animals to wear clothes, not whether an owner should feed their own pets. It's like stating that religious people are more likely to commit crimes, so therefore religion should be banned.
Dogs and Dolls: Animals should not be forced into clothing.

First off, thank you for the adorable pictures. It is true. Not all animals do not enjoy wearing clothes. As stated in my topic, I am looking specifically at animals who DO NOT enjoy wearing these outfits, such as my own cat. There are many animals that do not desire to wear such styles. There are pets too comfortable and safe living with us that they do not feel the need to try on clothing. They know we'd never put them through that. Also, there are animals, like my friend's cat, that are less domesticated and could not be tamed for long enough to be put into an outfit against their will. There's something about the your opening statement that makes me falter in my choice. I respect you for that. But I still stand strong in my beliefs. Most animals, whatever type, do not wish to be dressed. You say: "Forcing animals into clothing does not lead to malnutrition or deadly disease." I am leading up to a much bigger topic. As you probably know, I said that people who treat pets like dolls are less likely to care for them well. Some may care only about showing off their fancy pets to friends, and not give them real love. Dressing animals may sometimes lead to this. If people who dress their pets do what I think they will, the animals could be malnourished and sick in the blink of an eye. Behold, the counter-links: http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... Do you think these animals look happy? Seriously, some dogs need to fight to walk in those booties! The bird doesn't look too happy either. Tell me your opinion on these pics.
Dogs and Dolls: Animals should not be forced into clothing.

I thank my opponent for the debate: My opponent claims that animals do not enjoy wearing clothes. I'd like for PRO to show evidence that animals wearing clothing has serious mental health effects on the animal. Like, how many animals killed themselves cause they had to live with the shame of wearing clothes? At the very best it could just be a moderate inconvenience for the animal. Just like its a moderate inconvenience for me to wear pants. They restrict movement and I like to feel a breeze on my balls. However, the law states I can't expose my penis. Second off, animals in clothing look awesome. Just look at these cute pictures: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... There so cute and provide joy to both pet owners and persons viewing the pictures. If PRO's resolution were passed, we never would have seen these adorable pictures. Third, animals often have to go through much worse harm then just being forced into clothing. Animals are eaten, used in experiments, and farmed. PRO would have to disagree with all these practices in order to truly believes animals should not be forced into clothing. Fourth, how much "rights" should animals receive at the expensive of the owner? Should animals not be neutered since it would hurt the animal? Should pets receive more toys, be allowed to roam around in the streets, be required to have a playmate? Pro states: "Abusing animals and not giving them the proper care can lead to malnutrition and deadly disease" This is a non-sequiter. Forcing animals into clothing does not lead to malnutrition or deadly disease. PRO has to show otherwise.
Dogs and Dolls: Animals should not be forced into clothing.

No one should buy pets just as dolls and toys in the first place. Pets have feelings and comfort zones as we do. If I were to stuff my cat into a ridiculous blue sailor suit purchased at a thrift store, he'd be uncomfortable and humiliated. If I know cats, he'd run around the house meowing until someone took it off. He even hates wearing a collar! He'll scrape against every piece of furniture in the house to get it off. Some people buy animals as dress-up dolls, and that is wrong. Abusing animals and not giving them the proper care can lead to malnutrition and deadly disease. If you keep your pet around only for entertainment and for show, you do not deserve to be an owner. The only piece of clothing I'd suggest is a life jacket. You can never be too safe, especially when it concerns our furry friends.
Smoking should be banned in public areas

Smoking should be banned in public areas. People should only smoke at their homes. There are cons when smoking in public places - Children at a young age witness it. It was not long ago when I read this book about smoking and even children smoke also as what the book told me. It also stated that some children see the cigarette and since they think everyone else is doing it they think they shall also do it. Children get shown bad examples when someone smokes in front of them. - Children and adults who don't smoke inhale the smell and the person inhaling it can get the serious side effects like Lung cancer Cancer The smell can have a negative impact -People are very rude when smoking. When people smoke they don't care where they smoke and often smoke in front of that person's face and like stated above children can inhale it. - It can burn clothing. I have seen this many times with people who don't smoke and later on when the smoke goes passing and spreading it can linger into your clothing and burn it. Who wants ripped pants and shirts? - It can cause pollution in small areas and people inhale the smell and it wont go away unless you open the windows. - It offends nature because of how it spreads smoke up into the air. Your turn
You are invited to attempt to prove the existence of your god

Much to my disappointment my opponent forfeited the last round and therefore their opportunity to provide a final argument. As previously pointed out, Pro has made the fatal mistake of tarnishing their own argument while inadvertently fortifying my stance. It is prudent to mention that my opponent, as I have highlighted throughout this enjoyable debate, has consistently displayed a complete misunderstanding of solid scientific theory and components thereof - namely evolution and natural selection - and has attempted to argue from this tainted perspective. We have seen the flawed rational that science is based on faith. We have witnessed the twisted logic that would have Pro believe no scientific theory is fact. We also see that my opponent would have you believe that should just one scientific theory - again evolution - be proven to be fact, that it would make science completely redundant. It is these misunderstandings that drive my opponents stance and ultimately shape their arguments. You will see the use of impressive rhetoric throughout my opponents arguments but this amounts to nothing more than subjective reasoning in the guise of word salad. This is something I have already highlighted. The premise of this debate was straightforward - compelling evidence was to be provided to support the existence of an all powerful, cosmic creator and as this debate comes to a natural end, I am still, as I have already pointed out, no closer to being provided with tangible evidence. Every piece of 'evidence' was manifested from subjective reasoning or a flawed grasp on scientific fact. My opponent, and I say this with the utmost sincerity, has played their part with decorum, never attempting to tarnish my character however this does not detract from the fact that decorum does not win a debate. It is the content, it is the logic and rational brought to the table and it is ultimately the strength of these things which win a debate. My opponents stance was never built on solid foundations and as this debate proceeded, Pro inadvertently tore down the pillars of their own argument. In this debate, the burden of proof lies with the person making the god claim. This burden of proof has not been satisfied. Indeed, it is no closer to being satisfied than it was when this debate began. My argument and stance has been fortified with each passing round whereas my opponents has degraded consistently. I asked for tangible evidence for the existence of a god, my debate was accepted, yet I have been provided with none. My opponent has therefore fallen short. I would invite any potential voter to cast their vote with fairness and honesty.
You are invited to attempt to prove the existence of your god

I will accept your challenge under the premise that definitive proof of god is impossible to either prove or disprove, it is of course a debate which has existed since time began and so far there is no difinitive proof on either side as inevitably the proof of god and the proof that we are spiritual beings is often dependant on belief and belief is subjective dependant on the individual, it also depends on witnessing, theories are basically explainations based on numerous factors and no theories are absolute fact unless one was there to actually witness them, while the Big Bang theory is the accepted theory of universes existence, no one was there to witness it therefore it is a theory rather than absolute fact., unless we can witness a 'god' can we believe in it. I do not believe we will get to the bottom of this question on debate.org but we shall hopefully share in informative argument on each side. I would prefer to steer away from scriptural debate of religious doctrine although it may be inevitable that scripture is taken into account, belief in religion and belief in god are separate and while I feel religion serves it's purpose I will not be arguing from the barrier of only one ideology. So I will debate what I believe, which is that god created the universe and all that's been and is within it, we as humans are spiritual beings rather than material beings and if we get onto it that there is a life after death of some form. I would like to discuss something which I have read about which I find intriguing which is that truth in itself depends upon the individual and is itself subjective, as in just because something is 'all in your mind' does not make it false, if it is true within your mind then it is indeed your truth , which may be an interesting factor in a god debate. So back to you, I will follow your lead so to speak , on where and what you want to begin this debate on.
You are invited to attempt to prove the existence of your god

I would like to invite my potential opponent to provide arguments in favour of the existence of their god. I am an atheist so I will provide rebuttal for any arguments presented in this debate. First round should be reserved for my potential opponents opening statement in favour of their theistic god. Last round should be reserved only for a closing statement and as such no new arguments should be presented. Other than this, I am happy to adjust to any argument my opponent wishes to present. I look forward to debating
Wolverine would win in a battle against Predator

My opponent forfeited last round. There is nothing new for me to argue. My opponent has not provided me arguments to my last points. To summarize and conclude, it may seem that the Predator would lose to Wolverine, but that's because we only see the Predator while they're hunting or doing some sort of rite of passage. The weapons they're equipped with that we've seen are already dangerous. However, there could be even more powerful weapons that they simply don't bring to hunt or for the rite of passage. If you'r hunting for deer, you're not going to use a nuclear bomb to kill them. And if you have some sort of rite of passage, it's supposed to be challenging so there are typically limitations as to what you can use during it. So for all we know the Predators might have some great things that are hidden to us. Also, the Predator could call for some help from it's friends...the race of Predators. Wolverine has friends also, but the Predators with their numbers and weapons could and would defeat Wolverine's groups. Also, if Wolverine ended up on the Predator's ship, and the Predators flew that ship into space, Wolverine would probably have to die of starvation or oxygen deprivation if he wasn't killed by the Predators. So Predators win.
Wolverine would win in a battle against Predator

Imagine the entire race of Predator blasting Wolverine with their plasma cannons at once. He would die. Not to mention, if they managed to trick him into hopping on to their ship, he would be guaranteed to lose. Firstly, if he killed all of the predators, he would be stuck in space where he would die of many things. Secondly, he wouldn't ever be able to return because he wouldn't know how to fly the Predator's ship, Even if it was one on one, this scenario is still possible. So Wolverine may seem better to you, but Predator would defeat Wolverine
Wolverine would win in a battle against Predator

Ok well wolverine friends could kill them a few can actually!!! Predator is super slow with all his equipment and none his weapons can kill him because most of them are just metal except for the plasma cannon!!! Wolverine is a lot faster in hand to hand combat!!!! The plasma cannon will hurt wolverine but it will just piss him off so wolverine is better The only thing I feel predator could kill him is the big bomb which is only used if he's about to die!!!! Wolverine is just better
Wolverine would win in a battle against Predator

Here are my arguments. Firstly, the Predators hunt humans for bragging rights. They collect human skulls. Also, they fight a race of Aliens that kill humans as a rite of passage. However, you're forgetting the most important part. The Predators are a race of advanced technology and seem to be involved in some mythical occurrences. If Wolverine wants to pick a fight with a Predator, he's just going to anger the rest of them and have a big war to fight. We only know what the Predator can carry with him for weapons during his hunting game and rite of passage...and that alone is impressive. Now imagine what they can carry if they are just going to go to war. All of them versus Wolverine. And who will defend Wolverine? His little superhero friends? They would get destroyed. In fact, the Predator's race probably made all of the superstars from that franchise so that the children would have some game to play in the future. And really, all the Predators would have to do is trap him in some advanced chamber that they've constructed, and he'd starve to death or dehydrate.
Everybody believes in a worldview!

I will start with the argument written out. 1. If I exist, then I have a belief in a worldview. 2. I exist. 3. Therefore; I have a belief in a worldview. This argument applies to all humans naturally due to us having the ability to have abstract thinking. So I have heard many people say they don't believe in God, not because they don't believe religion, but because they don't believe in anything. I had one person tell me that he holds no beliefs, rather he conceives in concepts as they serve to a function. To me that is a perfect description of the word belief. To say "I don't believe in anything" I say is self-contradictory. You would have to apply the statement to itself making it newly worded as I don't believe in being able to not believe in anything...thereby believing in something. Everybody believes in something, in fact many things. Most will admit they believe in other individual minds separate from their own, or the fact that this world exists outside of their mind and is not just a dream. This all boils down to certain Atheists that claim they don't believe in anything to escape the reality that they "believe" in Atheism. To admit they believe in Atheism would require them to provide evidence specific to their worldview. However not to take away from the original subject of this debate...I state that everybody believes in something when it comes to metaphysics, or rather a worldview. Weather your an Atheist, Christian, Agnostic, or any other, you have a belief. Simply denying being apart of any category may feel like an individual has lifted the label of that category but has not excluded them from a certain categorical position. For example saying your no longer human, that you feel you have evolved and no longer respect the title as human for yourself, does nothing to take away the fact that you are still human as a human is defined. As for defending premise # 2, I will let it be self supporting. Looking forward to a response to this argument.
the Bible is true

" This is the same kind of wisdom described in Proverbs 4:5-9. This can be seen by reading chapter 3 and 4 together" There's a reason that 3 and 4 are separate chapters, and that's because they are talking about different things. Proverbs 4:5-9 says wisdom is good, while Eccelesiastes 1:18 says wisdom is bad. Therefore, one of them is false. Not everything in the Bible is true. "If John would have said Jesus did not cry out,then that would be a contradiction,but he did not say that. " I guess I have not proven that passage to be false, but since I proved a different one to be false, I have fulfilled the burden of proof. I have some advice for you, Pro: In the first round, be more specific. Explain exactly what the resolution means. If you do not specify exactly what you are arguing for, your opponent can take advantage of that by creating his own resolution. Define a round structure. The last round should be conclusions so that I can't refute your arguments and win. A typical round structure is: Acceptance, Arguments, Rebuttals, More Rebuttals, Conclusions. Use better spacing. Make sure to include a space after punctuation marks. Voters can give me points for spelling/grammar because you did not do so. When quoting the Bible, quote the whole verse/passage. Don't just tell your opponent what to read.
the Bible is true

(Proverbs 3:19-22) " The Lord by wisdom hath founded the Earth;by understanding hath he established the heavens.By his knowledge the depths are broken up,and the clouds drop down the dew.My son,let not them depart from thine eyes:keep sound wisdom and discretion:So shall they be life unto thy soul,and grace to thy neck." This is the same kind of wisdom described in Proverbs 4:5-9. This can be seen by reading chapter 3 and 4 together._________________________________________My opponent says "Luke 23:46 says he (Jesus)" cried out in a loud voice" John could not possibly ignore this especially since he was at the foot of the cross when it happened" But just because John did not include "cried out in a loud voice" does not mean anything.It does not contradict (Luke 23:46) if John includes this verse or not. If John would have said Jesus did not cry out,then that would be a contradiction,but he did not say that.
the Bible is true

"Proverbs 4:5-9 is talking about Godly wisdom.And how you should obey the law and words of God." Prove it. Cite a verse in the passage that mentions Godly wisdom. "read Proverbs 4 and see that the wisdom that the Bible calls good is Godly wisdom,read the whole chapter.." I read the whole chapter. It doesn't mention Godly wisdom. "..Jesus must have said John 19:30 first and then he said Luke 23:46." Luke 23:46 says he "cried out in a loud voice". John could not possibly ignore this, especially since he was at the foot of the cross when it happened.
the Bible is true

____I will be using the King James Version of the Bible.___________________________________Proverbs 4:5-9 is talking about Godly wisdom.And how you should obey the law and words of God.(Ecclesiastes 1:18) is talking about the wisdom of man.(And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven:this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith..I have seen all the works that are dond under the sun;and,behold,all is vanity and vexation of spirit.(Ecclesiastes 1:13-14) You can read Proverbs 4 and see that the wisdom that the Bible calls good is Godly wisdom,read the whole chapter..____________________________________________________________There is no contradiction in John 19 and Luke 23 Because both accounts are true.In (John 19:30,it does not say Jesus' last words are "It is finished" It says he said that moments before he died. It probably was the second to last thing he said..In (Luke 23:46)it says "Father into thy hands I command my spirit"and having said thus,he gave up the ghost."_______Because the Bible says "and having said thus,he gave up the spirit"Means that was his last words..It does not say "having said thus"in John..Jesus must have said John 19:30 first and then he said Luke 23:46.It fits perfectly together if it was said that way.So there is no contradiction in these verses.__________________________________________Each Gospel Book is written a little different Why? Because they was wrote by different people.But they all agree with each other,This is a good reason to believe these books to be true..
the Bible is true

By saying "the Bible is true" I am assuming you mean "everything in the Bible is true". If I can prove a single passage of the Bible to be false, I have fulfilled the burden of proof. "Get wisdom, get understanding! Do not forget or turn aside from the words of my mouth. Do not forsake her, and she will preserve you; love her, and she will safeguard you; the beginning of wisdom is: get wisdom; whatever else you get, get understanding. Extol her, and she will exalt you; she will bring you honors if you embrace her; she will put on your head a graceful diadem; a glorious crown she will bestow on you." (Proverbs 4:5-9) "For in much wisdom there is much sorrow." (Ecclesiastes 1:18) These cannot both be true because one says that wisdom is good while the other says that wisdom is bad. "Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Father, into your hands I commend my spirit'; and when he had said this he breathed his last." (Luke 23:46) "When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, 'It is finished.' And bowing his head, he handed over the spirit." (John 19:30) These can't both be his last words. At least two of these verses are false. The Bible is not true. http://infidels.org...