BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans are both physically and mentally superior to most animals.

Human beings are superior to most other life on Earth because we fight and think in a different way than most animals. Mentally, we exceed all life easily because we don't need to do things like hunt, or constantly work for food. Since the first easy sources of food, humans haven't needed to put in as much time or energy hunting for food, instead using that time to think and plan. Our brains are also designed to adapt much more easily than most other species. Physically, we also beat most animals mainly because of three factors: our regenerative ability, our shock resistance, and our endurance. Our regenerative ability surpasses nearly all life on Earth. We can heal from wounds that would take most animals months to years to heal in a matter of weeks. This, in tandem with our ability to take massive amounts of force effortlessly and our medical prowess, means that normally fatal wounds (like a horse having its leg broken by a bite) can be healed by a little surgery and a month or two of rest. Finally, the extreme endurance that humans show as a species makes most other species look like a bunch of people with broken legs running a sprint next to Usain Bolt. There's mounting evidence that primitive humans hunted larger prey by moving at a walking pace, tracking it, and letting it tire itself out to near-death, all the while slowly hunting it down and eventually catching up to the animal and killing the exhausted beast. We were far superior then, and we are still superior now.
Western liberal countries have a moral duty to spread democracy across the world using force where n

Resolved : Western liberal countries have a moral duty to spread democracy across the world using force where n Agomoni opens with the above resolution and then takes Con, and thus their position can be inferred to be that western liberal countries do not have a moral duty to [...]. Forgetting about the part of the resolution which is chopped off, it seems clear that they are advocating that said Western countries should stop acting as world police[1] as they have no moral duty to do so. The first point to be raised in such a contention is what is the foundation for the moral claim by which this assertion can be carried or refuted. Is Agomoni arguing for nihilism whereby there are no moral duties[2] or are they arguing for moral relativism where by both countries could claim equal status on inherent moral duty and neither could claim the other was objectively wrong and thus have clear moral ground to force the other to change. Or are they advocating for a form of moral objectivity which does not provide such a clear and uncontested moral duty? However, this seems to go completely out the window with the opening post : "A moral duty,nah.A duty all the same,that to their own people who were promised economic stability before elections." The contention now seems to be shifted significantly and Agomoni is arguing that while there is no moral duty, there is an inherent duty based on the obligation to live up to a commitment made to the populace which apparently demands said actions in order to meet election promises. This seems to be fairly clear and is expanded on further in the following : "But one also understands that it's an easier task to siphon off oil and ore,and also a congenial market to sell McDonald's burgers,when a country lay in the hands of smiling politicians,those whom you helped come to power.Rather than when grumpy guerillas hiding in caves are the bosses." We have therefore a number of assertions, non-trivial to support which are in support of a resolution to enforce democracy to ensure local economic value. In order for Con to carry said resolution then they would have to provide support for the following contentions : 1) Western politicians made promises of economic growth and stability which are endorsed by the voting populace to the extent they would support war to enforce democracy. 2) That said war and occupation and subsequent puppet democracies would actually lead to economic growth and stability for the originating western countries and not induce any direct or indirect consequences otherwise. This would entail obviously that such regimes would be stable long enough to provide the necessary financial returns. 3) Further such an action is the best way to achieve such a desired economic goal This is an interesting and not uncontroversial assertion and I look forward to Agomoni fleshing out their argument so as to carry it. [1] http://www.teamamerica.com... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] http://plato.stanford.edu...
Western liberal countries have a moral duty to spread democracy across the world using force where n

A moral duty,nah.A duty all the same,that to their own people who were promised economic stability before elections.One surely understands their concern for poor,dirty Third World rats living under opression.But one also understands that it's an easier task to siphon off oil and ore,and also a congenial market to sell McDonald's burgers,when a country lay in the hands of smiling politicians,those whom you helped come to power.Rather than when grumpy guerillas hiding in caves are the bosses. And if them smiling politicians try to extricate themselves from under their thumbs,you could always drop bombs.Since the anti-aircraft missiles they have were bought from you anyway,and they'd find they're just a little inaccurate for practical purposes,it's a safe bet.
Life After Death is Probable

life after death cannot be scientifically proved by any living creature with any kinds of methods and stuff. Saying something about life after life is like talking about how looks like Uranus that no one ever visited. For my first point, let me state that there is no proof that life after death actually exist. Every religions in earth describes what the hell or heaven looks like but there is no reasonable proof. If you want to register your name on the board of "South pole visitor", it is mandatory to prove your visit in there. But if you just describe or arguing there without any evidences, it is not acceptable. Secondly, many clergies and monks have had cheated the general public to make fortune. Look at the example of indulgence in middle age. It was very common way to habitually extort money and goods from unenlightened people at that time. Is it different now? No. They still have been raking in money by threat.
LD Topic: When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.

The Fool: I hope you will be able to remain noble in argumentation. my the right understanding catch the hearts of Voters. I take these debates ethics seriously, pls respect them. If we are both looking for knowledge as appose to deception then there is no reason not to. Debate ethics: -straw men are to be taken seriously. -No semantic games. Semantics are for clarification only, never for vagueness (the most precise definition is the best) -a response must assume what most likely was meant by the speaker. -refutation must quote the claim being refuted.
LD Topic: When in conflict, personal freedom ought to be valued above economic security.

LD Debate: Round 1: Acceptance/Acceptance Round 2: Affirmative Constructive/Negative Constructive Round 3: Affirmative Rebuttal #1 & Cross-Ex/Negative Rebuttal #1 & Cross-Ex Round 4: Affirmative Rebuttal #2/Negative Rebuttal #2 Round 5:Voting Issues & Conclusion. So this will be a Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Round #1 is just for acceptance of both sides. Round #2 is the structure where you have all you arguments. No new arguments after that. Round #3 is the first rebuttal with cross-ex questions. Cross-ex questions' maximum are 30 and the negative answers them in their 1st rebuttal while the affirmative answers them in his 2nd rebuttal. Round #4 is the 2nd rebuttal. After the 2nd rebuttal, there will be NO arguments after it. There will be no rebuttals after Round 4. Round #5 is why you won and you're concluding statements. Good luck, fellow LDer.
It is morally permissible to have masturbated on 9/11 in between the towers going down

I cant even take this debate seriously. Go ahead vote for him because he has some stupid evidence he pulled out of the garbage. I do not want to disrespect those who died then make a debate about masturbating to it.The reason why is some of my friends had family members who were in those buildings and who am i to make fun of it. Plus, in the comments a guy said you totally got it from a comedian so this is really a troll topic
It is morally permissible to have masturbated on 9/11 in between the towers going down

"how is this even a debate"If you go to the 'debates' tab at the top left of your screen theres an option that says 'start a new debate' and then its pretty straight forward from there. "its not even a controversy you may have done this and wondered if this if wrong or not"I was in second grade and in school when 9/11 happened so no, this isnt something I actually did. Can you give an actual argument now?"well it is wrong to say the least because its not a funny matter and its totally immature"Opinion.... "many lives were lost including children and the fact that a person is aware that they are bateing during the incident is very sick and needs help"Another opinion....."I really am starting to think this is a troll debate."I am really starting to think that you have no intention of posting an actual argument. Seeing as how Con hasnt provided an actual argument yet despite having two rounds to do so, Ill go ahead and post what I have. 1) The only thing weird about this situation is the timing. It is morally permissible to have 'bated on 9/11 in between the towers going down because there is nothing inherently wrong with doing such a thing at such a time. The only weird thing about the whole situation is how strange the timing is and that the person knew what was going on in the world and was apathetic to those events while 'bating. The person wasnt 'bating at the fact that the twin towers were attacked, or to the idea that hundreds of people were dying in New York, or that some of those victims were indeed children..... He just happened to have really unorthodox timing.2) Tragedies happen every day yet people still masturbate despite them. Theres a famine going on in Somalia right now that has killed roughly 600,000 people, about half of the victims being younger then the age of 5. Despite knowing this, many people still 'bate away because many people are still apathetic to what is happening in Somalia since that country is beyond repair at this point. People die in boatloads all over the world on just about any given day, and despite people knowing that is true, they still put that aside and masturbate for self pleasure. 3) Its only sick if the person was sexually driven by the events of 9/11If someone 'bates to 9/11, meaning they were 'bating while fantasizing about the planes hitting the buildings and all that, then yes, that person is f*cked up in the head.... However, that isnt implied as the truth, what is given is only the fact that someone is indeed 'bating while 9/11 was happening. They probably were fantasizing about normal stuff while wanking it which is perfectly fine on its own, the fact that this person chose to do a very normal and acceptable thing at a very weird time doesnt make him evil or anything, just someone who has really weird timing. Having weird timing doesnt make something morally wrong, it just makes it kinda weird when you look back at it at a later date.
It is morally permissible to have masturbated on 9/11 in between the towers going down

how is this even a debate, its a fricking weird topic, its not even a controversy you may have done this and wondered if this if wrong or not. well it is wrong to say the least because its not a funny matter and its totally immature. many lives were lost including children and the fact that a person is aware that they are bateing during the incident is very sick and needs help. I really am starting to think this is a troll debate.
It is morally permissible to have masturbated on 9/11 in between the towers going down

"are you saying that its okay to masturbate during 9/ll or when the twin towers were burnt down?" Im saying it is morally permissible to have 'bated during the time period in between the towers collapsing to the ground.... Morally permissible meaning that the person who 'bated didnt do anything wrong or evil, and merely has weird timing.
It is morally permissible to have masturbated on 9/11 in between the towers going down

The full resolution is: "Resolved: It is morally permissible to have masturbated on 9/11 2001 in between the two towers falling to the ground" Clarifications: 1 - It is a given that said person who is masturbating is an american citizen who is living in the US and is fully aware of everything that is going on because he is watching the events on TV. 2 - It is a given that said person chose to masturbate in the time period from when the South tower collapsed to when the North tower collapsed. Rules: 3 rounds 8000 characters Con MUST GIVE ARGUMENTS IN ROUND 1 Only pictures of 9/11 are permissible, nothing relating to genitals though.
Cat are the best hunters

OHHHHHH Ok i see what you mean now.... As for the Humans having no tools argument, I would argue that Humans in nature always do hunt with tools (I never have seen someone go duck hunting with their bare hands) but for the sake of the debate I will let this go. As for the extinction factor though it still stands that even though a Tiger is a vicious predator like you claim their numbers are still dwindling because of loss of habitat, diseases, lack of food, human expansion, etc. and I was trying to use that argument to imply that Tigers are not the best hunters because if they were then their numbers would be growing, not shrinking. Tigers hunt alone http://www.englishdaily626.com... http://www.miamisci.org... http://www.mnzoo.com... http://nationalzoo.si.edu... That last one shows a little bit of interesting information, it claims that "Catching a meal is not easy; a tiger is successful only once in ten to 20 hunts." How could a Tiger be the best hunter ever seen if their success rate for hunting is between 5% to 10%? A 40 foot Tiger vs a Full grown Adult T Rex at about 40 feet would be the same fear factor if you look at it height wise. However you must take into account the teeth you can see in a T Rex (like in King Kong), Hollywood movies that glorify T-Rex's over Tigers, Giant Reptile compared to a Giant Mammal, etc. I concede that heigh wise they would be just as fierce however it is not just height of a predator that sparks fear in people (as for the tigers stalk from behind, I did not know that and I found that to be a really interesting fact. I was using the cornered thing only to show how fear of facing a T Rex would be larger than a Tiger, not as an actual situation) As for a specific example of A Tiger, I apologize for my lack of clarity because I am asking about what species of Tiger you want to compare it to, there is the Indian Tiger, Siberian Tiger, Bengal Tiger, Sumatran Tiger, South China Tiger, etc. I was just asking for a specific species of tiger so that I could research your choice more thoroughly. Again I apologize for my lack of clarity.
Cat are the best hunters

Thank you for providing such a splendid rebuttal. What I meant by pound for pound is that for it's weight it is a vicious predator. I meant that we should have treated each animal as if they weigh the same. If you kept the proportions of a tiger but had grown it to a weight of 6 Tons it would be twenty one times stronger and taller Or if you shrunk a T Rex so that it Is only 550 pounds it is twenty one times shorter and weaker. Pound for pound an Ant is stronger than a Triceratops. That would mean that a Tiger would be able to hunt things twenty one or thirteen times larger than a buffalo. And remember even at regular size Tigers are faster than a Tyrannosaurus Rex (references are mentioned in the the previous round). Tigers have no natural enemies because in nature if a Human (In the rules I say no tools) is attacked by a tiger the tiger would kill the Human. "T Rex hunted alone but tigers hunt in packs which allows them to take down larger prey, alone though they might not be so successful" involving this sentence, something I noticed in the reference site http://www.helium.com...... it actually says that Tigers are solitary hunters instead of what you said . I am sorry to correct you but you should carefully look over your reference sites "Also consider the fear factor. If a human was cornered by a tiger in the wild they would be terrified, but if (theoretically) a human was cornered by a T Rex then they would be losing their mind out of fear." I know what you said was hypothetical but I would like to correct you. First of all a Tiger prefers to attack from behind http://en.wikipedia.org... (I find wikipedia reliable when looking up phenomena) So the human would not have time to think. Remember we are dealing with a 40 foot Tiger (pound for pound) so the fear factor would be the same. I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by "I ask the Pro to select a specific example of a Tiger" Please specify thank you
Cat are the best hunters

I agree that the T Rex weighs about 6 tons and that the average adult male tiger weighs about 550 lbs and that the ratio is about 21:1, however you cannot compare the two solely by their weight. Consider their heights, T Rex = 40 feet Tiger = 3 feet This ratio is about 13:1 http://www.edu.pe.ca... http://www.enchantedlearning.com... T Rex hunted primarily Triceratops, Weight of prey = 9 tons Tigers hunt primarily Buffalo when in packs Weight of prey = 1 ton http://www.edu.pe.ca... http://www.enchantedlearning.com... T Rex hunted alone but tigers hunt in packs which allows them to take down larger prey, alone though they might not be so successful, http://www.helium.com... If outnumbered then tigers wouldnt stand a chance, and there is evidence to prove this, (see video at top, you may have seen it before) http://www.youtube.com... Tigers have few enemies but one of them, humans, have pushed many species of tigers towards extinction. This imply's that even though the Tiger is a superior hunter they are still inferior to humans. T Rex's on the other hand were wiped out because of a catastrophic meteor strike on the Earth and at the time they had no real enemies to threaten their existence (for those who have seen King Kong, no REAL enemies threatened the existence of the T Rex). http://www.helium.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Also consider the fear factor. If a human was cornered by a tiger in the wild they would be terrified, but if (theoretically) a human was cornered by a T Rex then they would be losing their mind out of fear. Consider what it takes to bring down each of these predators. Tigers can be taken down with a well placed rifle round to the head, a T Rex though wont go down unless you had something close to the power of a missile launcher. Ill end here but I ask the Pro to select a specific example of a Tiger to compare to the T Rex for the sake of better comparisons.....
Cat are the best hunters

Thank you for participating This one animal is what you will stick by for this debate In my opening statement I said "Felines in nature are the best POUND FOR POUND hunters" (pound for pound is intentionally capitalised and should not be counted against me) which means that I get to multiply my data by how many times heavier the T Rex is than the Tiger. The average Tyrannosaurus Rex weighed an average of six tons http://www.enchantedlearning.com... while some Tigers average At 550 pounds http://en.allexperts.com... 12000 divided by 550 equals approximately 21 this means that some of my data will be multiplied by 21 Thank you The average Tiger can jump 12 feet high http://news.nationalgeographic.com... but in this case the tiger can jump 252 feet high (12 times 21). The T Rex is on average 20 feet high http://animals.nationalgeographic.com... A tiger can reach speeds of up to 45 Miles per hour http://www.ehow.com... While a T Rex Runs at a top speed of 25 miles per hour http://www.unmuseum.org... Tigers like all cats have superb night vision and can hunt in any weather Including snow Tigers are able to pounce and use all four limbs and claws in a fight. Sorry about having such a short argument. It's my first debate. Thank you
Cat are the best hunters

I believe that felines in nature are the best pound for pound hunters. Your animal of choice must be a land animal. It must be either Carnivorous or omnivorous. This animal must be in it's natural state (meaning no tools). They will be debated as as only one of that animal, no flocks or herds. Subspecies will only be specified if necessary. Both of the animal will be debated as hunters, then we will decide who would win in a fight. We also need to specify where this takes place. The animals we choose are adult males. Round one acceptance. I Represent team tiger Thank you
Creationism is simply wrong

My point on my previous argument was:If creatinoism is wrong,why is it that the events of big bang and how the earth was created according to the bible are so similar and in order? This shows that science may have very well confirmed how the earth was created and also shows god was a key point in creation. After all, as shown in the first video I showed,the pieces of the puzzle couldnt just solve itself like that. "I don't think this sentence makes sense in English. You will have to clear that one up for me." The order of events that happened during big bang matches the events of creation in the bible. "What is "stuff like that?" Regardless, I agree that air "comes naturally." That is the whole point. It didn't come from God, it came naturally and organically." Air came first when earth was created which you agreed on. You say it didnt come from god. It"s like saying the table you have did not need a carpenter so with some random magic it just appeared like that? Strange because everything I see nowadays needs a creator. Science does not deny the existence of god which then means creatinoism isnt wrong. https://www.focusonthefamily.com... Science just prooved right in your face creatinoism isnt wrong. But something is ironic though. Its called the big bang THEORY. Theory:a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. So the big bang theory was the only idea that most scientists agreed was the way on how the earth was created. But its only an idea isnt it? Its just a theory or hypothesis as another word. Where is the evidence? Only a model? No evidence on the planet itself? So unless there is a confirmed way with evidence big bang or some other way to show the creation of the earth,Im sure creatinoism isnt wrong. This is an article from an athetist who wrote 4 pieces of evidence that god created the universe:https://www.google.com.sg... "Furthermore, why does it surprise you that the sun was formed within the same 10 million-year stretch as the earth? The Earth was quite literally formed from the sun" "Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4"And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5"God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day." Aside from air,light and darkness was the first thing that came upon the earth. The light came from the sun. You agreed that the earth formed from the sun. This just prooves that both creatinoism is correct unless science is wrong of course. P.S: if we do have a debate again,try not to use huge words. Simple words would do because Im only 13,thanks