BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Law of Diminishing Returns Applies to Kittens

"Regardless of whether kittens give you entertainment or allergies, you do not notice the effects of your tenth cat as much as you do your first cat. Since this is the case, the law of diminishing returns does indeed apply to kittens. " "The Law of Diminishing Returns states that for each additional unit of input added to a production system, there is less additional output. " Cats aren't factories. They don't produce goods. If I were to categorize Cats, I would put them in the service industry. So how do we measure returns on kittens? The return on kittens = Pleasure you get from kittens - Pain you get from kittens. For the Law of Diminishing returns to apply to kittens The return on kitten (x) > return on kitten (x + 1) for all integer values of x. Everyone still with me? So now to my closing statement: (1) From the perspective of someone who loves cats but is allergic to cats, the return on the first kitten is LESS than the return on the second kitten because the pain from the allergic reaction for the second kitten is significantly diminished. Therefore, the Law of Diminishing Returns does not apply to kittens. (2) From the perspective of someone who loves to watch kittens play together, the return on the first kitten is also < the return of the second kitten because when you have 2 kittens, they can play together, something far more amusing than just watching one kitten. Furthermore because there are 2 kittens, you only have to make one trip to the pet store. All overhead costs associated with kittens will be distributed amongst all kittens, thus having a second kitten cuts overhead associated with the first kitten by half. -------------------------------------- So thank you very much for reading this short closing summation.
The Law of Diminishing Returns Applies to Kittens

"The acquisition of the first cat requires a significant expenditure. You need to buy cat food for the first time, litter box for the first time, and the stress of undertaking a new unfamiliar venture." Regardless of how many times one buys cat food, the cost is static. Purchasing cat food for a second cat is not less of a financial drain, simply because one has done it before. The same can be said for litterboxes. This applies to caring for cats, as well. Even if one has cleaned litter boxes before, cleaning more will take more time. Even if I am a professional cat caretaker, cleaning the second box will take twice as long as cleaning the first one did. "Pet store owners collect cats don't they?" True, but they do not use them for their intended purpose, or any purpose beyond selling them. They do not collect returns from the kittens, they only pass them along to someone who will. "After all, isn't it silly to assume all returns are positive?" "But by the 10th cat, the house becomes already filled with cat hair.An additional x cat hair would not have much more impact on Jimmy's allergic reaction to cats." Even if negative returns are considered, my opponent has stated that they hold to the law as well. Regardless of whether kittens give you entertainment or allergies, you do not notice the effects of your tenth cat as much as you do your first cat. Since this is the case, the law of diminishing returns does indeed apply to kittens.
The Law of Diminishing Returns Applies to Kittens

"While it is true that multiple kittens have added utility, what is being forgotten is the added stress that additional kittens can bring." Actually this is a very weak argument. The acquisition of the first cat requires a significant expenditure. You need to buy cat food for the first time, litter box for the first time, and the stress of undertaking a new unfamiliar venture. The second cat is much much easier to take care of than the first cat. Think of it but use kids instead of cats. Raising your first child? Expensive, incredibly incredibly expensive. Second child? still expensive, but now you know what you're doing, and you already have the stuff. You can start buying in bulk and etc. Thanks Logos, I actually forgot the sharp decline in cost associated with a second kitten. This is indeed a powerful argument that I should have made in my first round. ----------------------------------------------------- "Kittens are, for the purposes of this debate, considered sources of amusement." "The Law of Diminishing Returns Applies to Kittens" One of these sentences is the the Topic of the Debate. Not my fault my opponent failed to consider negative returns during the first round of argumentation =D After all, isn't it silly to assume all returns are positive? The notion that only people who find cats to be entertainment would collect cats is just absurd. Pet store owners collect cats don't they? If I send my friend a cat for his/her birthday, he/she will become a cat collector as well, even if only temporarily. The topic of the debate is whether the law of diminishing returns applies to kittens, and that's the topic I'm debating.
We should loosen up drunk driving laws.

"Like I said, if you don't drive you won't get arrested for DUI." My opponent proposes the ridiculous step of not driving to prevent DUI charges. How about cops just refrain from arresting innocent people? "Yes. A drunk guy may open fire when he'd otherwise be a responsible guy." My opponent asserts the difference between opening fire on people or not is a few beers and not mental illness. Summary- 1. I have given specific drunk driving laws and reasons they are unjust. 2. My opponent has proposed that bartenders should detain people. Remember me and my opponent share the BOP. There is no middle ground. Has my opponent made a better case for more restrictive drunk driving laws than I have for looser drunk driving laws? 3. My opponent has bafflingly started the debate by requesting I change my profile picture. 4. My opponent started his arguments in round 1 despite agreeing to do it in 2. If he has any honor he will forfeit his final round. 5. I have facts. he has opinion.
We should loosen up drunk driving laws.

"My opponent proposes that bars forcibly keep patrons from leaving. This is a clear violation of civil liberties." When you enter a bar, you take a risk of intoxication. This is a price that you'll have to pay. And since it ultimately prevents you from getting on the road and DUI, you will be saved from arrest or an accident that may be fatal. This measure protects the drunk as well, even if they don't like it. "This has been proven in round 2 to be unreliable." This test still helps some and if it prevents you from getting on the road you won't be arrested for DUI. "when convicted of a drunk driving charge in a lot of places you will have your right to carry a concealed weapon taken away." Yes. A drunk guy may open fire when he'd otherwise be a responsible guy. "Sober people shouldn't be arrested for driving drunk. That's right cops suck at telling if somebody is drunk so they arrest people who are sober for DWI." Like I said, if you don't drive you won't get arrested for DUI.
We should loosen up drunk driving laws.

My opponent proposes that bartenders forcibly keep patrons from leaving. This is a clear violation of people's civil liberties. "But signs of drunkenness can still be looked for" This has been proven in round 2 to be unreliable. Premise 2- when convicted of a drunk driving charge in a lot of places you will have your right to carry a concealed weapon taken away.http://winbackyourlife.org... Your right to drive May need to be restricted, but why would they take away a completely unrelated right? This is absurd. Lock them up or suspend their license don't take away completely unrelated rights. Premise 3- Sober people shouldn't be arrested for driving drunk. That's right cops suck at actually telling if somebody is drunk so they frequently arrest people who are sober for DWI.http://m.csmonitor.com...
We should loosen up drunk driving laws.

"Premise one- field sobriety tests are unreliable and should be outlawed. Giving someone a field sobriety test is no better then flipping a coin to see if a person is drunk." But signs of drunkenness can still be looked for, and a person can be stopped from leaving the for bar a short period of time until they're determined to be sober. Maybe for two hours. And the sobriety-test can be improved in order to make it better. "Instead of giving a field sobriety test that is really just a form of public humiliation, police should have a better reason to cuff someone and then take them down to the station and force this indignity upon them, then some humiliating test that is just a substitute for a coin flip." So are the cops supposed to visit the bars 24/7 to detain drunk people? Why not simply have the bartenders get their worker to put those things on car wheels to prevent the drunks from driving off while drunk? Also, I would imagine being detained by the police would be humiliating.
We should loosen up drunk driving laws.

However, because I find it unsettling, I ask Wylted to change his profile picture, at least until this debate ends. " My profile picture is none of your business. This is very rude. Premise one- field sobriety tests are unreliable and should be outlawed. Giving someone a field sobriety test is no better then flipping a coin to see if a person is drunk. . http://winbackyourlife.org... Instead of giving a field sobriety test that is really just a form of public humiliation, police should have a better reason to cuff someone and then take them down to the station and force this indignity upon them, then some humiliating test that is just a substitute for a coin flip. This would count as a loosening of drunk driving laws because suspected offenders are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt.
We should loosen up drunk driving laws.

However, because I find it unsettling, I ask Wylted to change his profile picture, at least until this debate ends. Those who oppose restrictions on drunk driving may argue that it violates a person's freedom. However, a person who is driving under the influence is much more likely to cause a wreck, quite possibly injuring or killing someone. Therefore, it is society's business, since it affects people other than the drunk driver. We outlaw murder, and for good reason. Since DUI (driving under the influence) may kill another human being, it should be considered equal to murder, or at least manslaughter. There is a time and a place for drinking, but never in a running car should one be drunk. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal, which should prove either interesting or prove to be a troll debate.
Apollo 11 mission of the U.S is faked

Resolution: Apollo 11 mission of the U.S is fakedI shall be arguing in favor of the above resolution. The BOP shall be shared. That is, I shall argue the above statement is true, my opponent shall argue that it is false and Apollo 11 mission is not fakedRulesR1 is for Acceptance. R2 is for Arguments and Rebuttals.R3 is for Rebuttals.No new arguments in R3.A forfeit shall result in a full 7-point loss.Thank you!
The U.S. ought to submit to jurisdiction of an int. court designed to prosec. crimes agnst. humanity

Neg V- Peace VC- Maintaining Hegemony Hegemony= A country's influence or authority over others; superpowers. Submit= to succumb or give up to. Ought= Obligation in more serious situations, Advisibilty in less serious situations. Designed= no guarantee Obs. One important goal of the U.S. is to get as close to a democracy as we can. Therefore, we do not want to impose any ideas without the proper consent. Ought can mean 2 different things. In less serious situations, it can be used as a mere suggestion. For example, you ought to try the apple with peanut butter. In more situations, it is used as owing to. For example, the criminal ought to turn himself in. If we impose on the U.S., we are just hurting democracy. 1NC= By forcing the U.S. to inevitably destroy itself to benefit all, you are causing chaos among nations in general. a)Submitting to an international court would cause another document to be valued higher than the constitution, which devalues the existence of the U.S. b)When 1 hegemone is gone, another needs to rise. The 2 contenders being China and Russia would end up fighting for the new position. These chains of events would end up hurting the world as a whole and hurt innocent lives which we know is immoral. By voting affirmative we would be encouraging the growing apart of nations and end up hurting the world. Therefore, maintaining Hegemony is the only way to ensure this.
The united states should bomb mexico

did you read ANY of what i said? we need mexico, mexico needs us. also, they would not be going to war with us because they decided to! it would be called "self defense" because WE went to war with them first! at least according to your crazy battle plan. besides, why fight them at all? they are by no means a hostile country. they are one of our ALLIES! also, if we nuked them, severe radiation would probably reach as far up as new mexico. we would be killing ourselves as well as them. it would be committing suicide as well as murder. i know that you republicans love rich people. texans are rich. mexico has 280, 000 soldiers. they're pretty capable of a battle. i await your last argument.
The united states should bomb mexico

sir, mexico is one of our allies. if we bomb them, they may very well bomb us. i am almost positive that you are a trump supporter. the cleanliness of a nation is no cause for violence. they are a separate nation with a separate culture. they do not deserve our hatred. they provide much of our goods, such as corn, beef, pork, dairy, and soy products, as well as fuel and machinery. bombing them would mean that we would be forced to produce those things on our own. i await your next argument.
Fairness and Equal Time Doctrines

"Stations are given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It can be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials." Stations can do what ever they want. The problem arises when individuals sue when the radio station is not following the Fairness Doctrine. Just look at many McDonald's lawsuits over spilled coffee. Any toe out of line by the media outlet would result in a suet. "The Fairness Doctrine does NOT regulate talk shows of any sort." In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the founding case for the Fairness Doctrine, began when Fred J. Cook sued a Christian TALK SHOW. "The Supreme Court ruled that "[the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public's right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters' rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion."" What you are refferring to was the Red Lion 1969 case. However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court), "Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate." "The Fairness Doctrine would solve many of our media problems because it promotes citizen's involvment and interest over the media's agenda." This is the extent of your actual argument. As I said before, we can simply change the channel or find another source for news. Now you ignored my argument that media companies are hurt. So the Fairness Doctrine has some advantages (that are non-unique) and causes damage. If you could travel from A to B in a painful manner, or an equally quick painless manner, you would choose the painless manner. We should all choose the option AGAINST the fairness doctrine.
Fairness and Equal Time Doctrines

Your analysis of the Fairness Doctrine is way off base. The Fairness Doctrine has two basic elements: It requires broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations are given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It can be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The Fairness Doctrine does NOT regulate talk shows of any sort. This is how the Fairness Doctrine Worked: Citizens, or citizen groups could file a complaint to the FCC for judgement. The Supreme Court ruled that "[the Fairness Doctrine] advances First Amendment values. It safeguards the public's right to be informed on issues affecting our democracy, while also balancing broadcasters' rights to the broadest possible editorial discretion." The Fairness Doctrine would solve many of our media problems because it promotes citizen's involvment and interest over the media's agenda.
Fairness and Equal Time Doctrines

To begin, this is what the "Fairness Doctrine" is to anyone who does not already know what it is: A policy that forces equal showing of both sides or an argument in the media. It also says that you CANNOT make an argument without showing both sides. My opponent says that the Fairness Doctrine solves the biased media problem in America. He mentions the presidential debate. Could it be the reason that some candidates aren't getting air-time is because not enough people support them? Clinton and Obama both have the wide support of most democrats. Any debate would focus on those two. There is a simple answer to a lack of information. 1.) Turn the channel 2.) Read another source (newspaper, online, TV) The FD is bad for many reasons 3.) Hurts media companies Conservative watch FOX News. Liberals watch CNN. (Generalization). Conservatives and Liberals enjoy listening to their own rhetoric. If FOX and CNN was unbiased and fair, many viewers would not have such "loyalty" to some news stations. This means the fan base goes away. 4.) Unconstitutional I can say what I want. This is the 1st Amendment. Kucinich was able to claim that he was getting no air-time. (I saw his statement regarding it). Why? Because the 1st Amendment allowed it. If Kucinich came on CNN, if we had the FD and said that NBC was bad, he would be sued unless a representative from NBC was present to debate this. The FD forces speakers to meet a requirement, which violates the 1st amendment.
Fairness and Equal Time Doctrines

Since the classically liberal presidential administration of Ronald Reagan, the complaints surrounding the wrong-doings our large media conglomerates commit fall upon the apathetic, indolent ears of both constituents and representatives alike. Does anyone ever question this? No. Why? Because most American people don't know of any sensible solutions to our biased media, so as a result, most of their elected representative do little, or nothing about it. Just yesterday, Democratic Presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich was excluded from the CNN debate, hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, just as he was from the one before that (hosted by MSNBC), and the one before that (hosted by ABC), but why? For starters, ABC (owned by Disney) has given money to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson, the only candidates included in that particular debate. The debate MSNBC hosted only included three candidates; Edwards, Obama, and Clinton. It is obvious MSNBC doesn't want Kucinich to become president. How can General Electric (MSNBC's parent company) maintain their role as the largest provider of unclean energy in the United States with the president calling for an end to coal and nuclear energy? How can Raytheon (also owned by GE) survive as a profiteering wartime contractor when the president calls for an immediate troop withdrawal in Iraq? No. Kucinich does not represent commercial interest. Whether or not special interests in media is undebatable. It is undeniably wrong. I am convinced that without the FCC's minor regulation of fairness in media, we will always have censorship of information the American people are entitled to. The only way to fix this is to re-instate the Fairness and Equal Time Doctrines. Some believe these small regulations are unconstitutional, but I don't see how. The press is still free to publish independent information. In fact, I believe these doctrines hold the first amendment in the highest regard.
Eminem has fallen off.

"1. Eminem is in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the fastest selling hip-hop artist."I hardly see how that makes a difference, seeing as he was the best-selling rapper of all time before Recovery. "2. One of the Requirements to be signed to Shady Records is you have to battle Eminem"Con does not source this statement and I cannot verify it. However, Eminem is still capable of freestyling and this does not support your argument in any way. "3. During the shooting of 8 Mile, Em would write lyrics for the soundtrack during breaks. When shooting resumes crew members will have to pull the notepad from him in order to catch his attention and make him stop writing." Not sure about the validity of this either. If it is true, it doesn't matter. 8 Mile was released in 2002 (Eminem's prime). "Threre is one thing I did not do was enlist the facts of why Em has never fell off. First of all, on his interview he clearly said his stuff is brutal your just finding songs editing them and sayin their corney also your saying hes a liar look at the movies their true" I apologize for not sourcing the songs I referenced in the first round. Con did not have to accuse me of editing them though. Let us look at my previous arguments. I made arguments against Eminem's lyrical quality, originality, and emotion.He has not responded to any of them.He has not supported his own arguments with any veritable facts or evidence.He accused me of editing the lyrics to his songs, a baseless claim which should cost him the conduct point.In light of this, voting Pro is the only reasonable option.Sources for round one and two:[1] http://www.azlyrics.com...[2] http://www.metrolyrics.com...[3] http://www.metrolyrics.com...[4] http://www.azlyrics.com...[5] http://www.azlyrics.com...[6] http://www.azlyrics.com...
Eminem has fallen off.

he has a histiory and some facts of his awesome ness for instince Eminem: Facts 01. Emï¿½ƒï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½€šï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½€žï¿½ï¿½s in the Guinness Book of World Records for being the fastest selling hip-hop artist. 02. One of the Requirements to be signed to Shady Records is you have to battle Eminem 03. During the shooting of 8 Mile, Em would write lyrics for the soundtrack during breaks. When shooting resumes crew members will have to pull the notepad from him in order to catch his attention and make him stop writing. Also Lose Yourself may have topped the poll on songs that spurs ball players to victory. eminem has been mentioned and used all over the world. Threre is one thing I did not do was enlist the facts of why Emhas never fell off. First of all, on his interview he clearly said his stuff is brutal your just finding songs editing them and sayin their corney also your saying hes a liar look at the movies their true