BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The United States is Ready for a Female President

I saw a similar debate challenge a few days ago. I thought it would be a interesting short debate. Clarification: I would not have any personal issue with having a female president. Please do not misunderstand my argument. Burden of proof shared, simply convince voters of your position. Pro must argue that the United States is ready for a Female President Con must argue that the United States is not ready for a Female President Definitions Ready is defined as "completely prepared or in fit condition for immediate action or use." (1) Round 1 is acceptance Round 2 opening arguments Round 3 rebuttals and closing statements, no new arguments. (1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
Indiscipline does lead to a decline in moral values among children

The facts that have been stated are not legitimate. The fact that indiscipline leads to decline in moral values is false. The Instigator hasn't explicitly stated if it is the children's fault or the parents fault. In the case of it being the parent's fault, this should be titled "Parents lack of discipline leads to a deficiency of morals in their children". But if this case is, as it has stated, then I will begin to argue upon the facts. In the World true success is measured by the amount of money you have obtained, and even if these people are corrupt, it must have taken some discipline to build empires. So those people did have discipline. Also numerous people will translate, your amiable transitions, into weakness, and they will manipulate you. you can have morals, but if they are only acceptable in your own eyes, but not in others, how do they even assist. The Instigator stated, that the effects of an undisciplined lifestyle, are, laziness, self-indulgence, self-cent redness, greed, and unpunctuality. These are symptoms that all humans experience. It is, as if the Instigator stated, that indiscipline leads to sleeping on a saturday. Everybody is familiar with saying that "you never stop learning". You might have philosophies set, but with proof your mind can be reformed. Falling into undesirable virtues aren't the product of undiscipline, but the product of incorrect morals and you, like I previous stated, you can be disciplined but with atrocious morals. Violence is not the product of indiscipline the cause of violence isn't frivilioius there is always a imperative reason. Brotherhood is amiable, but competition fuels people, and with to much friendliness the significant part, that is competition fades.
Indiscipline does lead to a decline in moral values among children

"Character is, by its very nature, the product of discipline". These are the words of Austin Phelps an American Congregational Minister and an educator. Growing indiscipline is a major problem among children in the world today. Many research articles show that one of the most devastating effects of indiscipline is a decline in moral, social and cultural values in children. Discipline can possibly be defined as the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not. According to Thomas Huxley discipline is the first lesson to be learned, and it is probably the last lesson a person learns thoroughly. "We sow an act, we reap a habit; we sow a habit, we reap a character." I believe that this is a direct result of discipline. Correct habits depend largely on self-discipline. However a failure to be disciplined or our undisciplined lifestyle results in the sprouting of weeds which choke the plants of virtue. True success is not measured by the amount of money that one has stocked up or by a great accomplishment; rather success is the crown possessed by those who earnestly do their best and live the everyday simple life by practicing all the virtues that it involves. A successful person is one who is honest in his transactions, who rings true in friendships and who is ever living to his moral ethics and values. Living an undisciplined lifestyle makes us vulnerable to undesirable moral qualities such as laziness, indulgence, self-centeredness, greed, unpunctuality and so on. Research has shown than people stop changing their outlook and mind-sets after the age of about 25 and the adolescent period is the period in which our ideologies take a firm shape. These ideologies are defined by our discipline. So, if we are undisciplined now, then we will follow in the paths of undesirable virtues. Indiscipline is a major cause of violence in schools and classrooms. The ideals of forgiveness and brotherhood have disappeared and have been replaced with revenge. Students no longer want everyone to succeed. They either want a win-lose situation or a lose-lose situation. They are even fine with the fact that it is okay to lose as long as my opponent is in the situation. A win-lose situation results in resentment, and both parties are not happy. This arises from the virtue of self-centeredness and even jealousy. An undisciplined lifestyle leads to the adoption of a very dangerous virtue. Once we inculcate it we become caught in a spider"s web and the habit will stick to us and will lead to desolation in our lives. This deadly habit is procrastination. It involves unpunctuality and laziness. Hence, I rest my case.
Cats make better pets than dogs.

I will make the argument that cats make better pets than dogs. Cats are more self-reliant and independent. They know how to bathe and can have their own alone time while still showing you affection when they want to. I would argue that they are not as needy and emotionally dependent as dogs. They are less time-consuming than dogs who need greater care by walking them outside, and who need constant attention. Cats are cleaner and can even be trained to use the toilet http://www.wikihow.com... If cats were people, you would respect them more because they are more independent, less exhausting, and less emotionally dependent. Dogs can be be taught many tricks, but so can cats. You can even teach a cat to fetch http://cats.about.com... Dogs can be used to protect your home, but let us not forget that tigers, lions, panthers, and leopards are also cats that make a much more fearsome bodyguard than even the biggest Rottweiler. So in conclusion, unless someone can refute any of these claims I think we will have to conclude that cats make better pets than dogs.
Assault weapon practically.

The purpose this debate was to argue the practicality of civilian owned semi-automatic firearms which may be classified as assault weapon. Legislation, and hypothetical mass-shootings are entirely different topics. But I will say, although I believe a modern semi-automatic to be optimal in a high stress situation, in a massacre such a Newtown, CT in the same amount of time a manually operated firearm could have inflicted just as much damage on the unarmed victims. Handguns are extremely difficult to obtain legally in many parts of the country, so they are many times not an option. I don't believe anything to be inherently wrong with any style of firearm. Ergonomic features such as collapsible stocks and forward grips help the user control the firearm better and do not increase firepower in any way. Control over a firearm is paramount in a home defense situation because of the potential to penetrate walls. A hunting rifle is a rifle which is used to hunt. Many people hunt with AR-15s. Many rifles marketed for hunting would be considered assault weapons under the new AW bill. For example, a standard semi-auto hunting rifle fitted with a pistol grip for comfort would be banned. You do understand the assault weapons ban is based not on firepower, capacity, rate of fire, etc. but features such as pistol grips, bayonettes, practically unusable grenade launchers, heat dissipating shrouds, etc. ?
Assault weapon practically.

I should have stated this in the previous round, but I am not a gun expert so I'm not hip with the lingo used in the gun community.Anyways let's continue. Based on your most recent argument, the only advantage these weapons have over others is that it's easier to kill people with them. Their higher rate of fire would make it much easier to orchestrate a mass shooting. This has been proven in recent events such as the Sandy Hook shootong. Without the use of these weapons, the shooter would not have been able murder the victims as easily as they did. And don't pull out the cliche "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I agree with that statement. And yes, banning these guns won't completely stop them from being used. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least make an effort to prevent future.incidents. You say these guns are similar to other guns, what's wrong with using the "legal" ones? Can people not protect themselves with pistols. Can Hunters not hunt with hunting rifles? Please give me a practical reason for which these specific guns are used. So far you've only shown how they can more easily be used as ruthless killing machines.
Assault weapon practically.

The term "assault weapon" is an ambiguous political term used to classify semi-automatic firearms based on superficial features which are believed to resemble those of actual military firearms. The determining features vary between governing bodies. Firearms which can be classified as assault weapons are not used by any military. Assault weapons should not be confused with assault rifles, their select-fire(ergo fully automatic) military counterparts. Some will argue the term was intentionally created to fool to ignorant public into thinking they are fully automatic machine guns. The majority of firearms classified as assault weapons fire a cartridge of relatively moderate firepower, much less than a typical hunting cartridge. A typical .223 Remington cartridge commonly used in the AR-15 has about 1,700 Joules of energy. The .308 Winchester cartridge, a common hunting caliber, has more than double the energy, at around 3,800 joules. Almost half of all firearms sold in the last 30 years are semi-automatic, therefore it would be reasonable to say semi-automatics are ordinary. Firearms with manually operated actions require a manipulation before each shot and therefore have a lower rate of fire. A semi-automatic does not require a manipulation before each shot which allows the user to keep both hands on the firearm which engaged with a target. This could mean increased effectiveness particularly during a high stress situation. Because of this all modern sporting rifles are semi-automatic, including the infamous AR-15. These modern sporting rifles are modular and highly customizable, a plethora of aftermarket parts is available. These rifles can easily fitted with various ergonomic features which appeal to people of all age, size and gender. In a matter of minutes an AR-15 can be setup to fire many types of ammunition. You could go from a small target caliber, to an inexpensive pistol caliber, to standard .223 caliber, to a large caliber suitable for hunting. You could even convert to fire ballistic darts. Field stripping for cleaning or disassembly for maintenance can be done in minutes with minimal skill. Many other firearms require various tools and gunsmiths expertise. So to answer your last question, all firearms essentially perform the same function, however the semi-automatic counterparts do the job better. Furthermore, assault weapons function no differently,and are inherently no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifles.
Assault weapon practically.

The problem with these guns lies right in the title. "Assault" weapons. They are designed to kill people, which is why they are used so often in the military. Regular US citizens who aren't in the military do not have a need for such high powered weapons. Ordinary rifles that aren't semi-automatic are just as versatile. They can also be used for hunting, target shooting and self defense. In what practical sense can these assault weapons perform what other rifles or handguns cannot?
Assault weapon practically.

Assault weapons are nothing more than common sporting rifles. Here is an example. Many will argue the AR-15 is the most practical firearm of all time, hence the popularity. The AR-15 uses a modular system, therefore it can quickly be configured for many different scenarios. Hunting, target shooting, self defense, just to name a few. It can be configured to fire many different calibers and projectiles. In it's normal configuration it has reasonable recoil and can be adjusted to suit people of all builds.
Some feminists take it too far

even though I am not against it, this should be fun... Well... For females, they are really just getting more and more aggressive, they just put it in another way. Even though it's nice having rights, it also makes us work harder in some areas. I find that it would have been easier without some rights like not having to work. If you say that we females had to tidy up then, well, my mum still vacuums, washes dishes and all that type of stuff, AND she works, so whats the difference?
Some feminists take it too far

I think feminists were right in protesting for women to have equal rights. We thank them for that. However, there are some feminists who take it too far. If you hold a door open for one of them, or press the button for them in the lift, they are enraged. "I can do it myself!" they say. It has nothing to do with you not being able to do it, its just common politeness. A man will hold the door for a man. Why do they feel as if they cannot ever be helped, even when the one who wants to help isn't trying to undermine them?
Some feminists take it too far

< > How many times to I have to point this out? A right ALLOWS you to do something, NOT MAKES YOU DO IT. <> How is this related to this argument? Read the title 'Some feminists take it too far'. Your argument is supposed to be 'Some feminists do not take it too far'. You have to think what you are debating about. > She was right in saying that, but again, what does this have to do with my argument? < > I don't know whether you mean that it's normal for a women to work, or that many women work, but 1) It doesn't mean you HAVE TO do it and 2) What does this have to do with the argument? < > I don't care whether you meant it or not. I need proof, I need reasoning, I need a justification. < > So you are saying that over time women have began to verbally abuse each other more? Perhaps there is a slight increase of verbal abuse in society, but it is sexists and unjustified to state it is only women who are becoming more aggressive. Also, you have to state in which way women are beginning to act like men. < > I actually think you are joking. This is not related and barely makes sense! < > As if that is a justification! I am a beginner also, I joined the site 5 days ago!
Some feminists take it too far

Firstly, I agree, I guess my point is weak. We all may all have rights, but it does make us go to work and all that stuff, I may not have a job yet, but when I was younger, my mum gave up work to look after me. A friend said "You have to work, otherwise you'll have no money." Back then, none of the woman had jobs. Its now become a custom for the woman to work. When I said that woman are just getting more aggressive, they just put it another way, I meant it. Its just not like wrestling wioth another person, its pretty much verbal abuse. It has just gone to far because of our rights wich enables us to act like men pretty much. Anyway, I have never seen anyone being so rude like the way you put it. Everyone says thank you around me. Maybe it also depends on where you are at. Sorry for presenting a weak argument. I'm kind of a beginner.
Some feminists take it too far

You argument is very weak. Some sentaces don't even make sense, you don't justify your opinions and some things you have included are irrelevant. < they just put it in another way>> Firstly, this statement doesn't even make sense. What does put it another way mean? And put what? And why do you say that women are getting more aggressive, on what do you base this theory? < > I don't understand what you mean by this. Having rights means enables you to do certain things, not forces you to do them. << it also makes us work harder in some areas. I find that it would have been easier without some rights like not having to work>> Like I stated above, a right doesn't force you to do something, it gives you the choice. < > How is this at all related to feminists taking it too far? This is completely irrelevant to the argument. Also, I don't understand what you are saying. Whats the difference; between what and what?
Jesus was a false Messiah!

So, go ahead, be my guest, you prove Jesus was a false Messiah. You say you wanted a Christian, well you have one, me. And before the debate, for the sake of the readers and myself. I would like to know what your religious beliefs are? This will be helpful to the discussion at hand. Don't try and hide behind a straw-man. Like I said I am a Christian and all I have to substantiate my belief in Jesus Christ is the Bible. But I assure you and the readers this debate. The Bible is all I will need. I will await your argument.
Euthanasia being legalized

Thank you for the argument Often, the discussion revolves around the right to life; anti-euthanasia proponents argue that euthanasia infringes on a person"s fundamental right to live. What they fail to see is that our "life" as human beings implies death. Without death, we do not have "human life" by its very definition. Like black and white or two sides of a coin, human life cannot occur without death. Therefore for those that argue that every man has the fundamental right to live, they unknowingly also agree that every man has the fundamental right to die. Because we can determine the course of our lives by our own will, we have the right to live our lives and determine our own course. Naturally it follows that the same self-determining capacity we have as human beings also gives us the fundamental right to determine how we die. It is also important to consider that the right to life has no say over the right to die. The right to live and the right to die are two separate, although related rights. They are also mutually exclusive in the sense that the right to live concerns itself only with self-determined life and ends with the right to die. The right to die on the other hand begins where life ends in death. While you live, you exercise your right to life; when your life ends, you exercise your right to die. It is important to consider that we refer to self-determined or natural death and not death resulting from someone directly removing from you your life, thereby restricting your right to live. If such significant weight in this sense is given to our right to live, should we not also give equal weight to our right to die.
Rap Battle

Okay, yes, I admit that I misspelled "too", I know But why you gotta insult such a simple typo? Is that all that you got on me? your fulfilling my hopes Of battling a pvssy, call the ambulance on your iPhone. I don't take prisoners, you get the death sentence... I'll hang you from my noose no matter your repentance I want vengeance, I will end this, no Treaty of Ghent, bjtch! I've vented but still tempted to kill you, and I can't defend it You've lost over 50% your debates, expect to lose again. Cause there's no way you can win once I loose my pen Or type or whatever, I'll fight you whenever, you're few with wins I got 100% on my record, one more after I neutered him. You don't respect your own rules, but I stay true though To my promises, I don't look for a loop hole. I hate to break it to you, but you're gonna lose, h0e... No doubting that, after all this mof's name is DawsonBruno
Rap Battle

Okay JimShady, it's time to turn up the heat,You might as well quit now and admit defeat,This is a for sure win for me, barely a fight,At least I know how to use the word "too" right, -------------) (Check your last line, facepalm)Everyone loves my rhymes 'cause they're legendary,I will always be first, and you will be secondary,When I start to rap, everyone stops to listen,You better grow up, get a life, and quit your b*tchin.My lyrics are hypnotic, they put people in a trance,B*TCH I thought I told you to take your hand out of your pants!You called me a chump, and I'm not sure why,My rhymes are so lit, IT'S LIKE THE FOURTH OF JULY!Let's get one thing straight, my rules don't apply to me,You might as well leave that closet, and confess your homosexuality.I know you're gay, but hey I'm not one to judge,When this rap battle is over, you'll be the one holding a grudge.
Rap Battle

Master at debating? heh heh, what a funny joke! Everybody has to laugh at what that dummy wrote Do you have any more stuff to laugh at or a Punny quote? Or is your brain juiced out? I guess he's done, he's broke... But I'm not, don't need a medic to be wrting down my debit Pathetic? Is that how you said it? You think I've gone and fretted? FORGET IT, Ima blessed kid, now gimee some credit Cause I rap hard, rap long, and ranked on the website Reddit! You saw my other battles, and saw my opponents defeat squonk, AdmiralSlaughter, kikiki are all that I've beat! (also your mom), and who's on your list, or you just can't compete? But you can concede, cause I see your trembling at your feet My feat is outstanding, and you broke the rules, you know, Cussing in this battle is something like cheating in Uno But OK djck, I'll kick your fvcking bjtch @ss to Pluto... Your mom's a true hoe, two bad she gave birth to DawsonBruno.
Rap Battle

JimShady, I just wanted you to know I am a master at debating, Right now I bet you are laying in bed, masturbating. I've seen your other rap battles, and they're pathetic, After I'm done with you, you're gonna need a medic. Since this is first round, I'll take it easy on you, Then I'll start roasting your @ss like a barbecue. Another thing you should know is that I'm a visionary, Also, I that have an outstanding vocabulary. B*tch when I destroy you, it will be tragic, You will be so astonished that you will think I am magic. I spit bars on the daily, and I can't help it. My rhymes are so fire, they are like a writ. Habeus Corpus on your b*tch @ss, Imma smoke you like some Kentucky Bluegrass. Soon you will see: my rise to fame, B*tch you better remember my name.
noobs, not accepting my debates

Okay, I have no clue how to argue this debate. It seems that the resolution is: Resolved: Other people (noobs) are not accepting BestDebaterEver's debates. As Pro: BDE must prove that other people are not accepting his debates. As Con: I must prove that other people are accepting his debates. Well, every debate that Pro has instigated thus far has been accepted. Therefore other people are accepting his debates. Therefore, the resolution is false. Furthermore, I am not a noob sniper, as you say yourself (. http://www.debate.org...) that you are the best debater ever.