BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cats vs Dogs

Jeez dude, don't have to be so offensive.I'm not talking about leopards, I'm talking about the typical domesticated house cat.Cats are not as jumpy as dogs! Cats like to chill out!Cats are great animals, studies have shown that when you pet a cat, your body releases chemicals which can relieve stress and possibly make you live longer.Cats are smarter than dogs, dogs get hit more often and they bite more than cats, so cats are better to have around small children."On another note, whilst it's true to say that cats are more independent as pets, they will never amount to the level of training that dogs such as blind dogs or circus-trained dogs are. " My cat has been trained to attack animals and get my newspaper. http://pets.thenest.com... Next time don't be so offensive, theres no need for that.
Cats vs Dogs

Number 2 is a lie, cats just as prone to anxiety issues as dogs are.http://www.petmd.com...When a cat gets stuck in a tree, you call the fire brigade to rescue them. I don't know what the hell you are referring to.If you are referring to leopards and wild cats let's begin analysing the hunting strategies of wolves and I will display you to sophistication level of the canine. If you are going to use leopards, I have every right to use wolves as they are in the same family of animals, and there are no known behaviour of wolves that cannot also be found in domesticated dog species. (http://yamnuskawolfdogsanctuary.com...)Wolves make tree-hugging leopards look like the pu$$ies they are.Wolves have a hierarchy, a code of conduct and a way of life. Leopards have a tree...The only Cat that comes close to the level of sophistication of canines is the lion. Lions, however, are only one species of dog. Put a bunch of dogs together and an entire hierarchy and society will form immediately, cats will just scratch and bite until the most vicious one is left their on its own and the others stupidly cower in the corner when they don't realise they can gang up on the stronger one via team work (dogs often do this).Good luck on your rebuttal, you'll need it.On another note, whilst it's true to say that cats are more independent as pets, they will never amount to the level of training that dogs such as blind dogs or circus-trained dogs are. Cats are intellectually inferior to dogs and emotionally less intuitive too.
Cats vs Dogs

Cats are better than dogs for the following reasons: 1. Cats dig a hole to go to pee or poop. Or they can go in a litter box. 2. Cats aren't as jumpy as dogs, they usually like to chill out on the couch or on te porch, while dogs like to run around. 3. Cats can be tree dwellers or bush dweller, while dogs are always on the ground. I await my opponents arguments.
gay marrige

Thank you for the debate. Firstly the idea of gay marriage being condemned practically all stems from religion. If it wasn't for religions that condemn homosexuality, it would be almost fully accepted in society. How do I know this? America is a very Christian nation. Christianity condemns homosexuality. Most American "law-makers", if you will, are religious (Christian in some form). Religion and government should never mix. It cannot possibly be fair. Forcing your view upon someone else, but not only this; condemning and discriminating against someone else because of your view is disgracefully immoral thing to do. I could give you a big lecture on how homosexuals should have equal rights because we are all the same however the argument is much more simple than that. Don't force your beliefs into law so that thousands suffer because of it. Like I said it all stems down to the fact that America is a very Christian nation. There is no other argument for being against gay marriage apart from religion. Religion is on a decline in America anyway (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk...) With this decline in religion, the more states are accepting gay marriage. Coincidence? As you said it is now legal in 14 states. Eventually if this decline continues we can assume that all states will eventually legalize gay marriage which just proves my point that it is all religious based. A person can attempt to use excuses such as polygamous however the simple fact is that they would not have these anti-gay marriage ideas anyway without some influence initially stating that gay marriage is a bad thing. The only influence of course, being religion. Now I propose the question to you, how can being against gay marriage be justified by saying "well it condemns it in the bible so therefore it must be a bad thing, and therefore we should make a law that bans two men or two women from being able to marry because they are inferior to the rest of us, because the bible says so". Its a ridiculous notion.
gay marrige

As of July 17, 2013, gay marriage has been legalized in 14 US states (CA, CT, DE, IA, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NY, RI, VT, and WA) and the District of Columbia. 35 states have gay marriage bans through either laws or constitutional amendments or both. Proponents argue that same-sex couples should have access to the same marriage benefits and public acknowledgment enjoyed by heterosexual couples and that prohibiting gay marriage is unconstitutional discrimination. Opponents argue that altering the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman will further weaken a threatened institution and that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope that may lead to polygamous and interspecies marriages
The death penelty should be legalised

Settings10,000 characters, 72 hours, and a 2 week voting period. Full TopicThe Capital Punishment should be nationally legalised. TermsCapital Punishment:the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime. syn: Death PeneltyNationally:owned, preserved, or maintained by the federal government:Legalised:To make permitted by law. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. No Citations can be hidden behind a login10.
Everything is wrong about children

Children can't consent to be born, So being born is wrong- People shouldn't be able to make children, Because children can't consent to be born. They also can't consent to go to school, Which means that school is wrong. They can't consent to life, They don't understand life, So life is wrong. Everything about children is wrong. EVERYTHING. Don't make any more children. When you make children, You give them into the life where they could suffer horribly. The only way to prevent suffering is to prevent life. So do it. Prevent the life. No more children. There will be no more children being born. It is wrong. It is immoral. What if your child gets kidnapped and brutally raped by a sick pedophile? You could have prevented that if you only didn't give birth to that child. It's your fault. You gave birth to her. Because of you she was raped. All because of you. It's all your fault. You are a monster. A failure. A freak. You should die. Period.
Rap Battle of 2014: The Squeakquel

Its just too bad,You make me sad. Your rap makes just about as much sense as an airhead, sh*thead, boneheadJust sit backand I'll rap.I'll show you how to do it.Dont you go and have a fit.It's not polite to wiggle, to giggle to squirmMaybe when you grow up, you can make your own decisionsbut since you are just a 21 year old baby, and not a grown up Too bad you always need supervision.I asked you to leave me alone.I'm sitting on the throne. Don't you see?Nice college degree..You made me laugh, and yes, you almost made me pee.I'm gonna go to harvard.You're going to the graveyardI'm done.You're just about as good as a crappy pun.Without the fun.
Rap Battle of 2014: The Squeakquel

I'm already asleep, You are acting like creep, I make the tv go *beep*. When I hit the ground the world just shatters, I'll kick your a** faster than a poo platter. WTF is your problem, If you need to talk just call em. So step up mothaf*cka before you crack ya face. Your worse than a Sherlock Holmes who can't crack a case.
Rap Battle of 2014: The Squeakquel

Nuntaken, anything is okay in the name of rap. Ps.. im a girl. Well, well well, Mr Bp.. As I first predicted, your rap made me sleepy. You dont know I am toxic as a snake. And your ignorance will cause your neck to break. You made my ears ache, so now you gotta pay. You will fall like the crocodile guy after an encounter with the electic ray. Where'd you do your research bro? My rap is brainy and your rap is inapro. You look like a crap mixed with barney with an afro. Why dont you take a break, little girl? Your fate is starting to unfurl. Are you scared? You have to be, for you are snared In my trap, My rap. Now now dont you start to cry. I know you suck, but at least you always try. I dont think you understand. Why dont you go crawl in your little hole? Go and eat that rat you grilled and put into a bowl. You are wasting my time, you know. I could have found someone to debate with who has a brain at least the size of their little toe. Now please crawl on home. Just leave me alone. Your sad rap is really gonna make me groan.
Rap Battle of 2014: The Squeakquel

Your raps are childish, My raps make you silent. I'm the boss, You shop Ross, Stop being a c*nt, You smoke blunts, I go to the front, and I hunt. Bi*ch don't mess me, I'll make you pee, I guess you will just wait see, What I get for free, I get women, You get your right hand, By the end of this, You girlfriend won't give you a kiss. You date some girl named TJ who won't give you a BJ, My raps make you go "Oh s*it", My raps are filled with wit, Stop acting like a brit, You raps are as organized as an carpenter's kit. P.S. Raps are not made to take in offense, simply for the rap.
Rap Battle of 2014: The Squeakquel

Yo JP, you think that you can beat me? Too bad, so sad, I'm even cooler than the wrapper ALT. That's right Mr JP, I saw your rap with the dragon. Don't mean to be braggin', but I'll beat you like the U.S beat Bin Laden. You think you're so cool, but you're going to be beat by a 13 year old little girl. Even your face is gonna' be makin' me start to hurl. Mr. JP, Or may I call you BP? Cuz' you'll be as sorry after this battle as BP was after the oil spill. Also cuz' your wrap is going to kill as many people as the oil did krill. Just have to say. If you wrap it'll be abusive. Your wrap is not nearly as impressive as mine is amusive. Plus, mine is not nearly as repulsive. Now then, Mr, BP Please don't start to wrap or you're going to make me sleepy.
girls wrestling

You're correct. Many women are strong and tough. But unfortunately to genetics and biology after puberty they do not have the capability that men have. I have read past arguments and see that you're 13. I played with girls at that age too but theres a reason when you get older there are less of them. They are just not as physically capable as men. Its not sexism against women its just not safe for them to play and not be as physically capable as the rest of the people they are playing with. Same thing goes for wrestling. Men are naturally more physically capable then women and it can risk hurting the women. Another issue can be competition. If a woman plays in a mens sport and is nowhere near as physically capable as men playing against her. The men will win no problem and it would just be no fun for both the woman and the man. Thats another reason these sports are divided by sex is so the sport can remain competitive.
girls wrestling

You say if girls wanted to do well in mens sports they should be able too. The problem is they can't. Women are not as physically gifted as men and there is no way they would be able to compete with men at the high school level. All the successful girls in sports are at the youth level where boys have not hit puberty yet. I have nothing against girls playing with guys at a youth or rec level. But at the competitive high school level they stand no chance and it just becomes a safety concern there.
girls wrestling

Your argument is a lot of opinion. I used facts. You can't expect to make a claim and cannot back it up with any evidence. Men are more PHYSICALLY tougher then women according to many studies for example: http://www.mensfitness.com... https://www.quora.com... These are just two but you can google thousands more if you do not believe me. Any way when it comes down too it the fact that men are more physically dominant then women and it is the reason sports are separated by genders for a reason. Competition, Entertainment and Safety
Beastality

Imagine if a pigeon yeah, flies in to your house, and starts beating the crap out of you. Then, the pigeon calls for back up, a crow, robin, and tit all peck the sh1t out of you turd face. The experience turns you on, so much so that you enter a trance like state. There you dream of cartoonised owls fisting you. In reality, you overdosed on crack when you started this topic..... YOU CRACKHEAD.
This Post Will Get 500 views

I have a number of arguments working in my favor as to why the vote in this debate should go to the Con. First; in my opening round, I offered a framework to explain the burdens of both the Pro and the Con in this debate since my opponent had not done so. In that framework I stated that the resolution should be interpreted as an absolute estimate for the number of views this debate would receive. Pro never posits that this debate will get at least 500 views, or that this debate would at some point in time have 500 views until his previous round. No, instead he claims that this debate would get 500 views. Therefore at the point this debate does not have 500 views, but has even one more view more than that, my opponent has failed to fulfill his burden. This must be accepted as my opponent never refuted this framework; he forfeited the second round so this framework was extended uncontested. During the third round he still fails to respond to this framework, even given a perfectly reasonable opportunity to do so. And even during this round, the second to last round in the debate, he does not refute this framework. Second; Pro has never provided us a reason to believe that this debate actually received 500 views. There is no documentation to suggest that Pro did not just simply click the refresh button in his browser until the count said '500'. I for one can attest to the fact that I personally continually refreshed the browser after accepting so that the view count would reach 200. For all we know only my opponent and I have even seen this debate. In which case this post has gotten 2 views, not 500. Third; Statistics! In statistics there are four different ways to classify a measurement; Nominal, Ordinal, Interval and Ratio. Views on something such as a this post, or a youtube video or even ratings from a television show are classified into the Ordinal category[1]. The numbers have a set order and a set meaning to that order, but there is not value assigned to those numbers or that order. The numbers cannot be added or subtracted, and thus once the view count changes from 500 to 501, there are no longer 500 views but 501 views. [1] http://www.dissertation-statistics.com... In conclusion, for the aforementioned reasons my opponent has failed to meet their burden of proof, as this debate does not have 500 views, my opponent has not proven that this debate has 500 views and views are an ordinal measurement meaning that only the final count is relevant.
This Post Will Get 500 views

I will be arguing against the statement that "This post will get 500 views". If at the end of this debate, this post does not have exactly 500 views then the vote should go the Con, if it does than the vote should go to the Pro. This is because Pro does not state that this debate will receive 'at least' 500 views, instead he asserts that this post will receive 500 views. This must be absolute as a positive estimate of the number of views this post will recieve. Therefore if this debate has a view could of 0-499, or 501+ then the Con will have fulfilled their burden of proof, this post will not have had 500 views. As it stands this post has (16) views as of my posting this round. Therefore Con is currently winning.
Technology R&D Needs Unification

My only excuse is that I consider myself to be a qualified, professional procrastinator. I'll start off by addressing my opponent's rebuttals. In response to me stating that capitalism is one of our founding principals, and that this would destroy it, he said that uniting the research will help us in the long run, and we will be saved by it. But, if we look back historically, individuals, not organizations, have made almost all major breakthroughs. And of those that haven't been made by individuals, it is usually a very small group. Electricity, the light bulb, flight, the automobile, DNA, modern biology, the list goes on and on. Even my opponent's example, the atomic bomb, was based off research and experiments from a single person. And, as I said earlier, the making of the actual bomb was driven by competition, a pillar of capitalism. My opponent goes on to say that America's famous "little guys" disappearing isn't a bad thing. But, like my source stated, entrepreneurs aren't usually entrepreneurs because they couldn't get funding from a big company, they are what they are because they want to be their own boss. Many of them once worked in companies, and, once they decided they had gotten enough experience, left. My opponent would do away with this option of leaving, and force them, against their will, to work in a large corporation. Even more than the loss of capitalism, this betrays America's ideals, which say that any man is able to do what they want in the pursuit of happiness. A person could be miserable and hate their boss, but, unless they want to get out of the field that they studied in, they are stuck there. He goes on to say that forwarding technology is more important than individual wealth, and while this is good and noble in theory, but I'd like to see you tell that to the engineers while they try to pay their mortgage or send their kids to college. It is hard to advance technology when your designers are starving or being foreclosed on. In response to his theory about computers, have you ever seen Terminator? Just joking, but as I said earlier, computers have neither gut instinct nor empathy, and both of those are more important than odds or statistics. In response to him saying that the managers wouldn't work together, just the researchers, all I have to say is that then the managers would no longer have jobs. Because their would only be one company in each industry. If all of your designs and new research is being shared with the competition, then it is very hard to stay in business. My opponent then states that we need to not focus on economics, and instead survival, I say that they are the same. You cannot survive without an economy. It has been tried before, in a time called the Dark Ages. The same goes for his comment about getting rid of business in this mega-company. It should also be noted that my opponent did not mention the power that would unite these tech companies in the last round. Why, because it is impossible to be pro for that kind of unlimited power. It would be far too dangerous.
disbelief=no+doubt

Yet, my opinion even after insulting me has not answered my question, how did knowledge in his first argument get into the equation. He believes the definition of disbelief is non-sense. The proper definition to disbelief according to the oxford dictionary is Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real the definition of nonsense according to the oxford dictionary is spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense there different, they aren't even classified as synonyms! Doubt is self you can doubt but it will not effect all, Certainty is all everyone will feel the impact of certianty.
I say the 3 unclean frogs of Rev.16:13 are Christianity, lslam & Judaism.

SATAN DID NOT DECIEVE ME: http://upload.wikimedia.org...; />SATAN IS DECIEVING YOU, FROG: DOES NOT COME OUT OF A DRAGON'S MOUTH: http://fc08.deviantart.net...; width="849" height="849" />FIRE DOES, YOU KNOW FIRE RIGHT? : http://www.herald.co.zw...; />
I say the 3 unclean frogs of Rev.16:13 are Christianity, lslam & Judaism.

THE NIV BIBLE STATES: http://upload.wikimedia.org...; />NOTHINGLUCIFER IS NOT JESUS NOR JESUS IS LUCIFER, DON'T BRING UP THE TRINITY DOCTRINE, NONE UNDERSTANDS IT.LUCIFER ACCORDING TO GUSTAVE DORE WHO DID NOT SEE HIS BODY/FACE : http://upload.wikimedia.org...; />ILLUMANTI IS NOT SERPENT, OBAMA PROVES IT: s://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net...; alt="https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net...; />JUSTIN BIEBER IS ONE WITH SATAN!!!!!!: s://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net...; alt="https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net...; />NIV BIBLE SCHOLARS AND THLOGIANS KNOW HOW TO TRANSLATE: ANOTHER SCHOLAR: AND LAST ONE: s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; />THEY ARE WELL EDUCATED, APPROVED: WE CONCLUDE THAT NIV BIBLE http://upload.wikimedia.org...; />IS APPROVED: FROG IS FROG NOT SNAKE!
I say the 3 unclean frogs of Rev.16:13 are Christianity, lslam & Judaism.

I trust the NIV Bible scholars and theologians, not you.I SAY THAT THE UNCLEAN FROGS ARE UNCLEAN FROGS. FROGS ARE FROGS! POPES ARE COOL http://fc03.deviantart.net...; width="574" height="849" />POPE FRANCIS HOW CAN U DENY ETERNAL LIFE!!
I say the 3 unclean frogs of Rev.16:13 are Christianity, lslam & Judaism.

Pro says that the unclean frogs are 'Christianity, Islam & Judaism, but wait the Book of Revelation is a bunch of dreams and random things, many scholars say the following: "Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:8). .. .. In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John. He suggested that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears elsewhere in ancient writings. Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view. (From the NIV Bible Commentary , page 1922)" we don't know who wrote the Book of Revelation. It is certainly highly doubtful that it was written by Apostle John. The Theologians and Historians of the NIV Bible seem to agree with the invalidity of this book from the above quote. The author of Revelations has weird dreams for example:Rev. 15:2 "2 And I saw what looked like a sea of glass glowing with fire and, standing beside the sea, those who had been victorious over the beast and its image and over the number of its name. They held harps given them by God"I say the author was not sober.