BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dogs

Dogs are simply not the best pet to have. yes they are loving beautiful animals but they cannot and will not ever be the best. Best is defined as most excellently or suitably; with most advantage or success: my opponent has yet to find any data on this topic. Also you keep stating opinions, these are not facts you are stating, of course a good dog will be good that why its called a good dog but that good dog might not good to another because it is an opinion. but what is a fact is that dog bites occur every 75 seconds in the United States. Each day, over 1,000 citizens need emergency medical care to treat these injuries. (. http://www.dogsbite.org......) To me that not very good dog because that 1152 bites a day and 420480 dog bites a year. .. that sounds like a really good dog. .. not.
Dogs

32 people have died form a fatal dog attacks in the year of 2013. Annual data from 2013 shows that 56% (18) of the fatality victims were children 7-years and younger, and 44% (14) were adults, 25-years and older. Of the total children killed by dogs in 2013, 61% (11) were ages 4-years and younger. therefor the idea that dogs are the best pet is invalid. Now i assume there has been people that have bee killed by household cats or hamsters but i have yet to find any evidence about this. but there are many animals better than a dog as a pet for your household
the 360 is better then the wii

1. Standard "Nintendo" controllers are available for the Wii. http://www.ehereintl.com... 2. Wii has a larger variety of games to compensate for worse graphics. 912 Wii games > 736 Xbox 360 games. http://www.nintendo.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. The Wii has outsold the 360 by a margin of 56.14 million to 39 million. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. Motion control attracts a new range of customers to the Wii. Likewise, it is a new style of gameplay. 5. The Wii is made by Nintendo and as a result boasts exclusives like Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Super Smash Bros, Mario Party, Star Fox, etc. 6. The best selling Wii game, Wii Fit, has sold 50.54 million copies as of March 2009. The best selling Xbox 360 game, Halo 3, only sold 8.1 million. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. 360 is a bad investment with a general failure rate of 16.4% (1/6 will fail). http://en.wikipedia.org... Conclusion: The Nintendo Wii is better than the Xbox 360. For the reasons above, I urge a con vote. Thank you for this debate, pro.
In middle school guys only like attractive girls

I think this is incorrect in some sense. Though I agree that it may feel like guys only like so called "attractive" girls in middle school it is somewhat biased to claim this. "Middle school guys" aren't all the same, and last year (my last year of middle school) I was friends with a couple and one of them was a so called middle school guy who was indeed not dating an attractive girl (nothing against my friend but she was not the kind of stop-in-your-tracks attractive girl, she kool-aid dyed her hair and wore duct tape outfits for the sake of it all). But they were a nice couple and got along quite well, the only reason they broke up was she went on to be home-schooled the next year and he continued in public school, their parents weren't all too fond of the relationship - not because they weren't a good suit but because both sets of parents was moderately controlling - and so it ended. Now personal stories aside I will go on. The range of guys at the junior high school level is vast and they all have different personalities and wants. Some might indeed only like so-called attractive girls and it might make any teenage girl feel downtrodden to not be the object of affection of these sorts of jerks. But you *cannot* judge a whole age bracket on criteria set by certain persons in said age bracket. To put it honestly it seems the middle school guys you have mentioned must be very immature. And well, duh, middle school guys do often scream immaturity but it is indeed unfair to say all - immaturity discarded - want someone attractive. There is no worldwide deemed criteria for attractive and everyone has a different opinion on what attractive is. Indeed, there is often a warped perception of attractiveness at this age level that takes time to fester and to grow into some understanding. Point blank: in middle school all guys aren't the uniform IT clones from A Wrinkle In Time all bouncing a ball and deeming a certain kind of girl attractive. Some of these guys might be interested in intelligence, courage, athleticism, compassion, spontaneous quality, charisma, etc. If a girl is really attractive but totally vapid some guys would be turned off; regardless of age. One last note: middle school children are not uniform, some of these boys might be more mature than others so it is unfair to say they are all based on attraction as a quality if a girl is dateable. And I hope you understand everyone *is* attractive in their own way to *someone*. Attraction isn't specifically based on the characteristic of beauty, attraction is based on an appeal to the senses of the person in question. Sources Cited: My own experiences in life, dictionary.com, and Madeleine L'Engle.
Hitler was leading Germany with the countries' best intentions at hand

Firstly, Hitler was leading the country with the type of government that put Germans first above all other countries, races and economic levels, since Nazism is very Socialist at it's core due to it's far right nature[1][2]. Hitler talked to his peers not about himself, but most of the time about the country. For example in the movie "Der Untergang" or "Downfall" he said this: "All I wanted was success for the German people, for Germany. But all I got in the end were people that wanted to lead Germany into a rut. I was selfless."[3] This was coming from a Hitler in 1942, the peak of his success and yet he still thought about the country, not himself. In addition, these words would be put into a personal memoir, not in a newspaper where talking highly of Germany would be the highest of his concerns. Finally, Hitler was at most times invading territory throughout Europe and retaking the Rhineland primarily, as that was what started the war. He did not do this for himself. He had saw what the depression had done for Germany and for Austria, what the Treaty of Versailles had restricted the country to, and eventually lashed out for the greater good of Germany, all told in Mein Kampf.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...[1] https://www.politicalcompass.org...[2] http://hitlerparody.wikia.com...[3] http://www.greatwar.nl...[4]
Abortion should be lega

Hello And thank you for picking this topic Murder is the "unlawful killing of a human being" with some level of intent. California law includes "a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature." The only thing preventing abortion from being included in the definition of murder is that it"s currently not "unlawful." But basic science proves that an unborn child is a "human being." No mention of "personhood" is necessary for basic murder definitions. Killing a "human being" or a "fellow creature," even, is enough. Why, as a society, do we pick and choose human beings whom we can deliberately kill? These human beings are fully human, entirely innocent, and helpless and voiceless. Yet we purposely target them, setting very few restrictions on their killings. Is there any other class of human beings that our society will make it "lawful" to kill? Belgium is already on the path to extending legal murder through its legalization of euthanasia " even child euthanasia. History shows that Nazi Germany, once it began to legalize the murder of human beings, simply continued down the path " the elderly, the sick, the disabled, gypsies, homosexuals, the Jews, those who defended the Jews. Where would it have stopped? This is why abortion must be illegal if murder is illegal. It should never be "lawful" to kill any innocent human being. 2) The 14th Amendment was designed to protect classes of people like the unborn. At the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, abortion was already illegal or being made illegal throughout the nation. The criminalization of abortion accelerated during the 1860s, and by 1900 it was generally considered a felony in every state. Thus, there was no reason for Congress to specifically discuss the unborn in their debate on the 14th Amendment. The unborn were already a protected class in the U.S. However, during the debate on the 14th Amendment, Senate Sponsor Jacob Howard explained that it was essential for every man (or human being) to be equal in regard to the basic right to life: I urge the amendment for the enforcement of these essential provisions of your Constitution, divine in their justice, sublime in their humanity, which declare that all men are equal in the rights of life and liberty before the majesty of American law. Senator Howard also stated: It establishes equality before the law, and it gives to the humblest, the poorest, the most despised of the race the same rights and the same protection before the law as it gives to the most powerful, the most wealthy, or the most haughty. House sponsor John Bingham further explained the intent when he argued, as Robert C. Cetrulo writes, that "the Amendment was intended to be "universal" and to apply to "any human being." Fourteenth Amendment rights were intended not only to "pertain to American citizenship but also to common humanity.""
No country should have a veto on the United Nations Security Council.

Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.
No country should have a veto on the United Nations Security Council.

First we must understand that by abolishing the veto, we strengthen the UN's power to make war. This leads to a massive loss of sovereignty by the nations of the world. It is easy to see wrong in the world and want to use the power of the UN to correct it but let us think about the consequences of allowing 51% of the worlds nations to declare war on a nation. Any nation. With security veto, the UN is rarely likely to intervene in another nation. Without it the UN would quite literally police the world. Think of all the failed nation building attempts in our time. Now think of that several times over. Think of all the nations left in ruin by military intervention and left on the very brink of renewed civil war. If the UN is granted that kind of power, newly rising economies could be left as wastelands. You say these wars while be just? How is any war approved by 51% of the nations of the world just. You say this is somehow democratic? If every nation gets one vote, from china to the Netherlands, then it would be possible for one third or less of the population of the world to bring the wrath of the UN down upon a singe country. Granting it such power will also heighten tensions between the world powers. Everyone nation would be making secret treaties and deals and haggling for votes. Some nations would sell their votes to the highest bider. Instead of Russia of the US vetoing a proposal and leaving it at that, both sides would spend weeks using their influence to make deals and promises. Some countries would be run roughshod over numerous times by voting blocks against them. The countries in the minority will always be drawing the short stick. It would also escalate regional conflicts. If several countries are quarreling, they will almost certainly go to the UN. They know they have a good chance of gaining it's support because they know that one country can't veto their appeal. If they are a member of a large voting block that pledges to aid one another, they can pass the proposal over the objection of much of the world. Every nation will have to take a side, fraying alliances and raising suspicion and tensions. Any well connected would have a hammer in which it could smash any nation that opposed it.
Abortion is acceptable in the circumstances of rape.

I would like to point out that my opponent used only biased and unreliable resources. Anyone can go on Wikipedia and put anything they desire. First my rebuttals: 1) Even if Wikipedia was a reliable source, it doesn't help when you take things out of context. I quote my opponent: ". .. the maternal death rate in the US is 11 per 100,000. That is a 1.1 death rate every 10,000. " Wikipedia claims that for the United States of America, we have anywhere from 11-30. So yes, 11 is possible, but not likely to be that low if it ranges all the way up to 30. Here is the link for anyone who wishes to pursue further. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) My opponent has used biased resources such as christianliferesouces. com and christiananswers. com. It seems that my opponent was desperate for information considering he is Agnostic himself, yet turned to Christian websites. I rest my case. No further arguments will be made.
Abortion is acceptable in the circumstances of rape.

I would like to point out that we are only debating on abortion under the circumstance of rape. aï¿½borï¿½tion [uh-bawr-shuhn] noun 1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy. 2. Any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months. rape [reyp] noun 1. The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse. 2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person. -verb, raped, rapï¿½‚ï¿½ï¿½ing. If that woman did't get the abortion: Women who are raped or victims of incest should not be forced to carry out a pregnancy. Odds are that 1 in 3 women will be victims of sexual violence in her lifetime. Does this mean that 33% of all women should be forced to carry out a pregnancy from this violation? Considering how many people are killed during childbirth, should we allow this further risk to be endured on top of what has already been done? Many would argue that these women could endure the pregnancy, spending nearly a year of her life simply re-living the rape and its effects over and over again, to give up a baby at the end of it for adoption. However, we all are aware of the fact that there are millions of unwanted children awaiting adoption as we speak who remain unclaimed; in fact, UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance? My theory is that people who spend so much time, energy, and money on anti-abortion campaigns should instead spend it on the precious children they say need saving so- the ones who are alive and parentless. Imagine if all the funds spent on all those billboards and flyers and campaigns were instead either spent adopting or donating to places that are overrun with orphaned children... perhaps some actual credibility would be given to these people who claim to love children so much. Also, there is the fact of the matter of the more than one million homeless youth in America alone. The number one factor for a child being homeless is physical or sexual abuse at home. Perhaps these "child-lovers"ï¿½ should step in and care for these already-born children as well. [1] http://www.amplifyyourvoice.org...
RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision)

I feel as though you didn't read my previous argument because I did cover some of those topics. STD's - Circumcised men get STD's also. STD's are prevented by practicing safe sex and using condoms. Cutting off functioning skin will not prevent that. I feel using STD's as an argument is completely ridiculous for that reason. You cannot increase nor decrease his risks of STD's by having him circumcised, if he has sex with someone who has an STD whether he is circumcised or not he will get the disease. UTI's can also happen one way or another, women get UTI's all the time, they are not necessarily caused by being unclean they are things that can just happen. Cancer - Penile cancer does not happen until very late in life, if it does even happen at all, usually around their 80's. "(If they do even live to see this age. People aged 65 and up only make up 13% of the total population.) There is no proof that having a baby circumcised will reduce his risks of penile cancer, this is another thing that may happen even if he is circumcised. With this logic we should also cut off our baby girls breast buds at birth to prevent breast cancer, which is FAR more common. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) even states that circumcision benefits DO NOT outweigh the risks enough to recommend circumcision routinely among newborn boys. Also as I stated before not only is the foreskin completely fused to the head of the penis sealing out ALL bacteria, but it is also self cleaning. So you cannot really say that it isn't cleaner. When the foreskin is removed it leaves the inside glans which are meant to be an internal organ left exposed to the environment. It then needs to adapt by keratinizing, or developing a layer of rough skin on the head. This desensitizes it. The reason for most infections is FORCED RETRACTION of an intact baby. So yes, it is cleaner leaving a baby intact.
RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision)

The Pediatric Association of America, reccomend a circumcision, because it reduces the chances of Urinary Tract Infection, it reduces the chances of sexually transmitted diseases, and it reduces the risk of penile cancer. By not circumcising your child, you're increasing his chances of STDs, UTI and cancer. Oh, and by the way, the reason for the increased chances of UTI, are from uncleanliness. So you can't really claimed that uncircumcised penises are cleaner. Though the foreskin in nature, does prevent the penis from getting dirty, in the modern world, where we have soap and water, the existence of that foreskin, actually causes the penis to have a harder time being cleaned. http://www.m.webmd.com...
RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision)

Okay, I will begin with the biggest argument. "It is cleaner and there are less infections when circumcised." The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis, just like your fingernail is to your nail bed until it naturally retracts usually around early teenage years. It seals out bacteria which causes infection. The foreskin is completely fused to the head, no bacteria can make its way in there. Doctors in the U.S. are not intact friendly for the most part and give out poor intact care advice. The most common thing they say is to retract the foreskin when cleaning it. However, because it is fused to the glans , retracting the foreskin is ripping the membranes from the glans. This is extremely painful. This is the reason you hear of a lot of intact men having infections, because they are forcefully retracted, it is an open wound which does attract bacteria and goes untreated. It is ALOT like ripping your fingernail off. The foreskin is self cleaning like the eyelids. Females have a lot more folds then men and we have no problem cleaning ourselves, all you have to do is wipe it like a finger. Circumcision is an open wound kept in a warm environment ridden by bacteria from urine and feces. It is very prone to infections.
Statues of racists need to be removed from the world.

Statues of racists are disgusting. They look like garbage. Imagine, it's the 21st century, and we still have sick, filthy statues of people who spent centuries killing, whipping, and torturing fellow humans. They are monsters. MONSTERS. They are sick in the head. They must be burned down and go. these people are sick. Now, like you said, I should specify what I mean. I don't mean just here in America, I mean all over the world. But I would like to focus on just here, since no other country can match the limitless horrors that we have committed upon the black race. These statues must be removed. They reveal the most ugly, contemptible side of everything about America as a country. These people are utter, sheer garbage. They must die, leave. Any statues of sick people who owned slaves must be melted and killed, like the fiends and beasts that they are. I feel nothing but utter hatred towards them. They are animals who committed mass genocide, just as much as Hitler. I look forward to your next argument.
Genocide

The global community, Such as the United States, The British Commonwealth Nations, the European Union, China, and Russia have a self evident responsibility to prevent genocide in any nation that meets the following characteristics. -Resources -Otherness -Political Instability First and most importantly, the nation committing genocide must possess some form of mineral wealth or resource to exploit via neocolonialism and arms length capitalism: examples include oil, diamonds, lithium, ect. This allows the global community to justify the invasion of said sovereign nation for both economic and moral reasons. Historically, this has had mixed success, and the economic benefit may be either direct or indirect. Secondly, the nation committing genocide must be considered 'different' somehow. Cultural, religious, ethnic, and language differences should exist in order to reduce the sympathy of the populace of the invading nation. During an invasion to prevent genocide from occurring, many civilians will be killed, so to maintain morale as well as a moral high-ground the invader must choose as unsympathetic a target to it's own populace as possible. Thirdly, the genocide nation must be experiencing political instability. That way, a foreign invasion will create division and foster vulnerability rather than present a unified front. If the invader plays their cards right, they may generate a situation in which local security forces and rebels do most of the fighting, (more importantly dying) for them, to reduce casualties of the invading nation. Bonus points if the unstable climate produces dangerous terrorists and desperate refugees that enhance the genocide nation's sense of otherness. The savior nation can cherry pick whichever successful faction leader is most beneficial to their foreign policy to support, and ultimately sustain political instability at little cost while the global community, (or at least their elite oligarchs) reaps the benefits at the genocidal nation's expense. God help any nation who is foolish enough to practice genocide, because there are demons of light and angels of death waiting in the wings to swoop down and devour them. To quote the immortal words of Captain Jack Sparrow. "There is what a man can do, and what he can't do." also "...Pirate!"
Genocide

Debate Settings10,000 Character arguments72 Hour argument time14 Day VotingOpponent must have completed 1 debate, this is to avoid a new member accepting then freezing the debate, if you have not completed one debated and wish to accept this debate please message me or leave a commentComplete TopicDoes the global community have a responsibility to intervene in states committing genocide? Note: Contender is debating for interventionTermsGenocidethe deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation. Responsibilityhaving an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role. Intervenecome between so as to prevent or alter a result or course of eventsRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. No trolling5. No semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss.8. No "K's" on the topic.9. All citations should be links, and may not be hidden behind a login10.