BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pandas are the world's cutest and most awesome animal

to be honest i found that video adorable that a baby penguin scared a grown man. but anyway you said that the penguin was attacking the researcher that was getting close to him, well im sure that penguin was feeling threatend wouldnt you think, seeing as the man is only 6 times bigger then it. and why would a flightless bird make the bird not cute. "No one wants to see a sad group of birds that can't fly" that direct quote from you just proves how truly cute the penguin is. it is a walking oximoron and what is funnier then that. pandas are not the cutest thing out there there are many things cuter then the panda. the video you posted is the "cutest" video you could find about a panda but what about this video http://www.ebaumsworld.com... that is an example of a cute cat just doing his normal playing and it is about as cute as it gets. that panda video was a rare moment that because of the timing of their actions makes the video funny. not cute. pandas are cute animals but to try and argue that they are the cutest possible animal is just not true. thank you and good day.
Pandas are the world's cutest and most awesome animal

Penguins could potentially attack someone but they have no chance to because no one lives there. For example, look at this horrifying video of a brutal penguin attack ( Not for the squimesh) . http://www.funnyordie.com.... As seen in this terrifying clip, the innocent researcher is just trying to get a better look at the penguin and he is brutally attacked for no good reason. The penguin was extremely hostile towards this innocent man. Panda's are not 'fat blobs' they are cute and cuddely. And have you ever seen Kung Fu Panda? Come on dude step your game up on the real. No one wants to see a sad group of birds that can't fly huddle together they don't even move or do anything. . http://www.metatube.com... cute is that right there? A baby panda and a momma panda enjoying a nice anfternoon snack when he mother innocently sneezes and the cuteness level is just off the charts. Pandas are clearly the superior in this argument. People flock from thousands of miles away just to see pandas at zoos.
It Is Normally Sinful for an Underage Wisconsin Catholic Farm Boy to Regularly Use Chewing Tobacco

IntroductionI was recently asked a question similar to this, and the answer is that I have no idea. So the best way to resolve this is to debate it.DefinitionsNormally - as a rule; usually; ordinarily [1]Sinful - characterized by or being a sin [2]Underage - Below the customary or legal age, as for drinking or voting. [3]Catholic - Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church [4]Farm Boy - a boy who has grown up on a farm [5]Regularly - at regular times or intervals [6]Chewing Tobacco - tobacco in the form of a plug, usu. flavored, for chewing rather than smoking [7]RulesRound 1 is only for pleasantries and acceptance.8k Characters per Round, 72 Hrs, 3 Rounds, Open Voting, Select Winner Point System.Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[7] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Abortion is immoral (?)

Stimuli is defined as "That which can elicit or evoke an action or response in a cell, an excitable tissue, or an organism." By that definition, any outside influence on the fetus that the fetus has any response to would be stimuli. This could be as basic as the mother changing her diet and the fetus responding by demanding a different set of nutrients, based on what is available. Also, if the unborn fetus is a part of the mother here is a philosophical question for my fellow debater and voters: If removing an unborn fetus is similar to removing a tumor, then is one Siamese twin killing the other any different? While it may seem that the aborted child has been saved from a miserable life, there is a process that can avoid abortion altogether. Adoption is the process of bringing in and taking care of a child. Why is abortion morally right, when there is an alternative process? http://dictionary.reference.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
Abortion is immoral (?)

Fetuses cannot respond to the most basic of stimuli, such as sound, until week 22 of gestation. Most abortions occur before or around week 10- "88-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation" (only 20% of clinics offer abortion after the 20th week). The child could not survive outside of the mother, and therefore is PART OF the mother, making the procedure of abortion ethically no different from a tumor removal. In many cases, the aborted child has been saved from a miserable life. Many women abort due to their inability to raise a child at their stage of life. I believe that this is the responsible course of action: why would one start a child in life with few advantages? Conscious parents want to offer their child the most advantages possible and abortions prevent a lack of such advantages. http://www.buzzle.com... http://www.abort73.com...
Abortion is immoral (?)

I would like to now take the time to rebut my fellow debater. In response to the statement that the Catholic Church did not strongly oppose abortion until the 1800s. There is evidence that during the 1st and 2nd centuries, numerous Christians, which at that time were Catholic because the church hadn't split into the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, strongly opposed abortion. Because of this, the church had a strongly negative opinion on this. Statements about the strong opposition to abortion can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org... The Jewish religion has also been strongly opposed to abortion, which can be seen through out much of history. The Orthodox Church, after the split with the Catholic church, has always been strongly opposed to abortion. Other religions, such as Hinduism, also consider abortion to be the gravest of sins, comparing it out right to murder often times. http://www.spuc.org.uk...
Abortion is immoral (?)

CLARIFICATION: I wish to ask the voters (and Pro) to disregard circumstances of therapeutic and circumstances of rape. The issue at hand is over elective abortions. I brought up the topics of spontaneous abortions and the sort for purposes of definition and accurate display of all aspects of abortion. Also, I would request to focus debate on human abortions (I doubt this should cause issue) Pertaining to abortions and religion: The Islamic world permits abortions until a certain point of gestation (it becomes "taboo" when it is deemed the soul has entered the body. The Catholic Church did not strongly oppose abortions until the 1800's. I would like to take this chance to define the soul as "the incorporeal essence of a person, living thing, or object, but most prominently believed as a human trait." http://en.wikipedia.org... -my apologies to the voters: I understand that not much debate has happened as of yet. I underestimated the character limits, and true debate is coming
Abortion is immoral (?)

I will neither deny nor argue that spontaneous abortion is immoral. By being a natural process, it is not a choice, and I will not argue against it. Neither will I argue against therapeutic abortions, although it may lose me the argument. Evasion of harm and/or disablement of the mother and/or the offspring is and should be important to any developed society, and as such will not be argued against. For elective abortions, I will also exclude the case of rape. Rape is defined as "a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent." As such, I will not argue against the use of abortion in this scenario. I would also, at this time, like to establish a definition for living organisms. Living organisms usually contain the 6 basic characteristics of: Reproduction, Growth, Metabolism, Movement, Responsiveness, and Adaptation. http://en.wikipedia.org... World Book Encyclopedia
Abortion is immoral (?)

To start, we shall note that there are two types of abortion, induced and spontaneous. Spontaneous abortion occurs naturally and is generally termed as a "miscarriage". Induced abortion is just as the name implies. So, abortion is an undeniably natural process. Articles state that: "Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester", and "The incidence of spontaneous abortion is estimated to be 50% of all pregnancies." Nearly half of all fertilizations do not become children. Induced abortion can also be subdivided. Therapeutic abortions are for medical reasons: to save the pregnant woman from harm, or to prevent having disabled offspring. Elective abortions are at the mother's discretion and are not for medical reasons. The World Health Organization has found that abortions are a whopping 14 times safer than childbirth (0.6 deaths per 100,000 procedures, versus 8.8 for birthing) http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Taxpayer Dollars Used For Abortions

I argue the use of taxpayer dollars to carry out abortions allows the violation of minorities' beliefs and is, in fact, oppressive on some unwilling taxpayers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Round 1 IS ACCEPTANCE and the place to state your argument in one sentence. Usage of the word 'bigot,' 'Bible-Thumper,' or any other obvious slur immediately turns voting conduct over to other debater. The use of similes or comparing and contrasting to real life scenarios is encouraged because this argument's basis is an opinion argument.
Right Libertarianism (Pro) vs Left Libertarianism (Con)

I have never understood how Libertarianism can left wing. I will argue why Right Libertarianism is better but also how it is the only real form of Libertarianism. Also that the only true Anarchists are the Anarcho-Capitalists. First definitions- Left Wing Politics: Political positions that accept or support Egalitarianism. Right Wing Politics: Political positions that view some sort of Economic Inequality or Social inequality as either inevitable, normal or natural. Views differ over whether the inequality stems from social differences or competitive markets. Libertarianism: A political philosphy that upholds Liberty as is principle objective. Egalitarianism; A political philosophy that advocates the removal of economic inequality. Liberty: the state of being free from society from restrictions imposed by authority.
Right Libertarianism (Pro) vs Left Libertarianism (Con)

As I said Right wing politics are those that view inequality as inevitable. Therefore Capitalism is a right wing philosophy. And therefore Socialism is left wing with a Mixed Economy being a Centrist position (although the official 'left' in power are in fact in support of a Mixed Economy). Capitalism is an economic system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners rather than the state. Authority is a power or right to enforce obedience. Being free from authority is Liberty. The prime goal of Libertarianism. When the state controls the economy or a group of people (acting as a state) does, authority is enforced which goes against the very point of Libertarianism. In Socialism or even a watered down version this is exactly what happens- Authority is enforced. Therefore Egalitarianism and the Left Wing that represents it are in their very nature Authoritarian. Maybe not socially (they could support Euthanasia or Gay Marriage) but most definitely Economically. There is something that Libertarians abide by called the Non-Aggression Principle (the N.A.P) which states that aggression on another person's life, liberty, privacy or justly acquired property is illegitimate (always). Socialism advocates the elimination of private property (justly acquired property) and therefore violates the N.A.P. And also who will eliminate your private property?- Authority. Capitalism and the right wing that represents it do not necessarily impose restrictions by authority (they could- many Conservatives advocate for the death penalty or illegalisation of certain chemicals). Therefore Libertarianism can be Capitalist (Right Wing) but never Socialist (Left Wing) therefore it has to be Right wing. There is the case of certain people who claim to be 'Libertarian Socialists' and 'Anarcho-Communists'. However Socialism advocates the means of production to be distributed equally amongst the citizens. Communism advocates that each works according to his ability and recieves according to his need. Who is going to do the redistributing, who is going to control and regulate that each does work according to his ability and control and regulate how much he needs and who is going to distribute that? Someone or a group of people who have the power to enforce obedience. In other words some sort of authority. But didn't we just say that the restrictions of authority are the very thing Libertarianism is against? Exactly my point. Furthermore what if an individual makes something and sells it to another individual. This is an industry and trade that is controlled privately and therefore Capitalism. People are selling and receiving things beyond their need. Who is there to regulate that. Communism and Socialism answer that the community will. But if the community are placing restrictions on what individuals can and cannot do, they are imposing authority. Therefore left Libertarianism is a false Ideology and Libertarianism will always be right wing.
Neutrality unless attacked is best for a country.

First of all, the morality of this decision is very relevant to the debate because what is best for a country is a huge matter of opinion. Is what's best for a country standing up for our views and spreading democracy or is it looking out for ourselves first. I think that standing up for the values that our country was founded on is the main thing that holds us together and if we just ignore those values, we have nothing. Secondly, to say I have no proof that we were attacked for trading is ridiculous. I don't need evidence to prove the common knowledge that we were attacked for our trading with Britain. You yourself said that German u-boats were attacking our ships. I never said that invading countries who trade with your enemies made sense, I just pointed out that it has happened again and again in history. As for the Korean War. Many of the advances that you were talking about happened because we were at war and needed those improvements. Your point about the lose of lives in the World Wars was minimal compared to the current War in Iraq is ridiculous. More people died in single days and battles then the number of people who have died in Iraq to date. And countries don't rise up for countries who have done nothing, aside from protesting. No one attacked Germany in WW2 when they invaded Poland. In fact, the War didn't really start until after Norway, Denmark and France had all fallen to Germany, and France was the only one who could have arguably done anything to Germany. Whether or not Belgium and Finland would have been attacked earlier if they hadn't been neutral is just speculation and there is no proof to support that claim. As for Switzerland and Sweden, they have been neutral for hundreds of years and they remain truly neutral. They don't favor any one country with trade or banking. They have not been attacked not only because they have clearly been completely neutral for 200 years, but they also have locations that are very hard to take over, and have no real strategic value other than the fact that they are easy to defend.
Neutrality unless attacked is best for a country.

This debate is based on whether neutrality unless attacked is best for a country and whether or not it is moral has nothing to do with this debate. You have no evidence to prove that the United States was attacked in World War II because of its trading and even if it was that does not mean that because it was attacked it was not neutral. If this were true then we should have invaded all other countries that traded with Iraq and Afghanistan when we invaded them and this makes little sense. Threats to a country are either terrorism, which needs to have a cell inside the country to work effectively, just like AQ did on 9/11, or war, which is an attack that is easy to trace back to its source and would justify invasion. Even if we did win the Korean war, we could have stayed neutral and built upon our own country instead. If we build upon our own country, we increase our power to later fight a war by putting more money into technology, research, and training for our armies. The Iraq and Vietnam wars were unneeded wastes of troops. Even if they could have been won by sacrificing most of our men and our economy, they were not worth it. The World Wars were battles for our country's survival and therefore many troops needed to be sent, though let me remind you that the casualties were minimal compared to the other fighters and that our troops were less protected and could do much less than today's troops. Being neutral can actually create allies because the international community will be outraged if one country attacks a country that didn't do anything to it. The international community was unhappy and worked with us only grudgingly because they knew we had more power than them and scolded us for our attack on a country that did not do anything to us. Also, if we wait, it is more likely other countries will get caught up in wars and we'll come in to end a war heroically, not start one cruelly. Countries who are attacked first are almost always the countries who the international community favors and who get the most aid to win wars. Belguim and Finland would have been in war without a doubt and sooner if they were not neutral and they both survived it. The Cambodian civil war was caused by the fraud election in which conservatives won most of the seats and the tension between political groups and parties, not neutrality. If this civil war was started because of disagreement over whether or not to invade or which country to invade, the side that supported not invading or the country that was not invaded would have revolted anyway. Switzerland has also stayed neutral and never been attacked. It is one the biggest economic powers in the world now and has huge influence. Sweden has also remained neutral and is now a major exporting power and has not been invaded at all since it adopted its policy. Overall neutrality is almost always better for a country and is the best solution to its well-being.
Neutrality unless attacked is best for a country.

You mentioned the revolutionary war. I would just like to point out that we would have not won this war if France had remained neutral and yet you're saying that we should and turn our backs on those who have helped us and those who need our help. By doing so you are essentially advocating that we turn our backs on everything the founding fathers stood for. The facts are that in both World Wars we were attacked for our trading despite remaining neutral. Therefore, the only conclusion that one can make is that in order for our country to remain truly neutral, we must practice seclusion as well. As for your point that any threat would come from inside is completely ridiculous. You yourself go on to mention that there would be threats from outside. For which your solution to those problems is that we'd still know about them because other countries would tell us about those threats. This reasoning is extremely flawed because other countries would have no reason to watch our back and inform us if someone was going to attack us, because we won't be doing the same for them. In fact, doing so would only hurt the outside country because the attacking country would be mad at them. You also mentioned the Vietnam War and the War in Iraq. Your reasoning for these wars being so draining is that we had changed our policies. First of all, I would like to point out that we did the same thing in Korea, which you left out on your list of wars, and we succeeded there, so that disproves your point already, However, I will go further and say that the Vietnam and current Iraq War were/are draining not because we changed policies on neutrality, but because we changed our military policy. Essentially what I mean by this is that we took part in these conflicts but not with the needed force to win them. If we had taken the same policy of sending in a few troops at a time in the World Wars, we would have done poorly in those too. Finally, I would like to take a look at the history of some other countries that have been neutral in the past, and how well that worked for them. Belgium became neutral in 1839 and then Germany invaded them for it. Finland was initially neutral in WW2 and ended up fighting both the Soviets and the Germans. Cambodia became neutral in 1955 and that led to a civil war, in which the rightful government had to get help from other countries to regain control. Vietnam later invaded them as well. In fact, it took nearly 30 years for Cambodia to regain stability and only with the AID of the UN was that possible. Luxemburg was neutral from 1839-1948 in that time they were nearly taken over by Napoleon and were invaded and taken over by Germany in both World Wars. The Netherlands were also neutral at the beginning of WW2 but they were invaded by Germany and then later their colonies were taken over by the Japanese. Finally, Liechtenstein was neutral in WW2 and was invaded by Czechoslovakia and Poland in WW2. So clearly neutrality does not work.
Neutrality unless attacked is best for a country.

Neutrality does would have no economic or military benefits for our country. It didn't work for us in either world war, and the same policies of seculsion and neutrality sent us into the great depression. We need to be involved in the world as both a military and economic power. For the military, the obvious disadvantage is the simple fact that no one would help us if we got attacked or invaded. Futhermore, we rely on other countries intelligence as much as our own to protect our country from outside threats. As strong as we are, we aren't invincible and we need other countries to help us. Economincally, it does not make sense for us to be neutral either. Without trade from other countries our prices would soar. The facts are we do not have all the resources we need to be neutral and even if we did, we do not have the needed factories to produce those materials into usable resources.
Trust is more important in a relationship than happiness

I believe that trust is more important than happiness in a relationship. With out trust there will be no happiness, if you are insecure about the person you are in a relationship with, they will not be happy. They will feel locked down and feel like they are more in jail than in a relationship. Trust is somethng both people need in order for the relationship to succeed. If there is no trust than the relationship will fall apart because one person will always accuse the other person of doing something or think they are always lying to them.