BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

INTRODUCTION Let me make note of the fact that many of my originally italicized texts became un-italicized when I copied them into DDO, and I neglected to fix that. Many of the statements I copied and pasted seem to merge with my written remarks. Anyway, I will now move on to challenge jamccartney’s rebuttals. REBUTTALS CNN is in fact biased towards the right. Okay, Cable News Network is owned by Time Warner, a major campaign contributor to establishment candidates. That alone makes it right-winged. On social issues, CNN is definitely progressive, but economically, at least on the surface, they seem to favour center-right policies. Believe me, I am from Europe, and what you call “Liberal” here is actually center-right or flat-out conservative. Forgive me, but I have limited time, and I wish to draw this particular debate to a close tonight. I have a lot on my mind and a lot of stress, and doing such extensive research and becoming an expert in economics over the course of a few days… that is just a bit too much to me. The minimum wage issue is an iffy thing, and arguments can be made on either side. I see what my opponent is saying, but there are plenty of well-known, educated economists that favour an increase in the minimum wage. I will leave it at that. My opponent’s remarks on the wage gap have swayed me, and I concede on that point. I will add nothing more on free trade. Perhaps I am stubborn, but I do believe my arguments were sufficient. CONCLUSION I will not flat-out concede to jamccartney, but I will be honest and say that he was the better debater here. I hope the voters vote fairly and justly. Thank you for this opportunity.
Bernie Sanders Would Make A Good President

IntroductionI challenge WilliamsP to a debate concerning whether or not Bernie Sanders would make a good president when elected. I will be arguing that he will not, while my opponent will be arguing that he will. Most of my arguments will be based on economic factors, though there are a few other factors as well.RulesThe first round is for acceptance only. The second round is for arguments only; no rebuttals in the second round. The third and fourth rounds are for rebuttals.Forfeiture will result in a loss of conduct points.
Dogs are better than cats.

My opponent is cherry picking data for dogs. In the top dog breeds, almost all of them are larger dogs that take a lot of exercise. [1] (hence my opponent choosing one breed fails to show on balance dogs are superior.) Further, big dogs are the majority of dog sales and are increasing. The larger terriers as well are moving up the ranks. [2] This debate assumes on balance cats are better then dogs or vice versa. So I must prove cats are better then 51% of dogs to meet that. I have proven the majority of dogs need large walks. My opponent cannot deny this. My opponents next claim is dogs are better because of walking. This is refuted by my earlier analysis (round 1) that the majority of people are against walking/running their pets as it takes time. Also 50 million Americans suffer arthritis, many of which they suffer in the legs. [3] Meaning a large portion of america cannot do it, another large portion of america does not want to do it. My opponent did not understand my 5 year statement. My analysis was dogs are only hyper to a certain age, and I used the number (5). Also when dogs get older they require good walks (analysis above) or else they get behavior problems. [4] Point being they will be less active, and may get problems if you dont walk. Playing fetch inside is odd. Have fun breaking windows. Also for large dogs they need space, (over 51% of dogs are larger) and therefore on balance dogs are at disadvantage. My opponent fails to use logic on they should not get a pet. That is not the real world. People do dumb things, and those dumb people will hate attention hogging dogs. Meaning the argument still stands. The annual cost (every year) breaks down like this: [5]Now using my opponents data we multiply this by the lifespan. dogs range from 13-1800, cats are 1000. Lets use 1500 for dogs. multiply by 10. 15,000 for dogs. 1000 times 12 = 12,000. Cats COST LESS. My opponents next argunment is on dogs listen. Let me go against my beleif and argue gays are born that way. Lets assume their father says dont be gay, they wont respond. Cant fight nature. You cannot train dogs not to warning bark, will do if it sees anything. (common at parties). [6] Point being you can never train a dog not to bark, and it is hard to train dogs from begging at tables. Its possible, but many methods are innefective. They simply like the same smells we do. We can control them, but never stop them. [7] You can train cats with birds with bells. bells on a collar then the birds always escape. [8] Easy fix, point refuted.Genetic domestication, cats have 10,000 years. [9] Animals take 100s of years to evolve (10k years, if something needs to evolve). [10] So the extra 4000 years means little, and the cat thrives withus today.Intellegence is irrelevant, the argunment was memory. that was a new argunment, a conduct violation and therefore should be disregarded. The origional arg was they cant remember, I proved they can,[11] therfore refuted. http://bit.ly...
Dogs are better than cats.

My opponent claims that I generalize cats as lazy, yet he generalizes dogs as hyper. There are 150+ dog breeds, all of which are identifiable (to most, a cat is simply a cat, whereas a dog is a retriever, collie, pug, etc. ). Many breeds do not require strenuous exercise. Chihuahuas, for example, only need to run around in a yard for a few minutes.1 Just because a cat is playful does not mean one can exercise with it. Dogs are very popular pets because owners can jog with them. “Dogs are only 5 years old and hyper for 5 years. ” Honestly, I do not understand this statement. If my opponent meant dogs only live up to 5, that is wrong. Bigger dogs live up to 10; smaller dogs live past 10.2 If he meant dogs are only active for 5 years, that is also wrong. Dogs weaken with age (don’t all animals? ), but do not necessarily become inactive. The activity depends on dog to dog. Not all dogs need to be outside. For example, fetch can be played with small dogs indoors during harsh weather. If an owner cannot spare even half an hour for his/her dog, especially because of money, he/she should not have gotten a pet at all; all pets cost money and time. Sorry for the ambiguity. I was running out of text, so I cut off my explanation to the value. I calculated the lifetime cost of dogs and cats. Dogs generally live two years shorter than cats, an average of the disparate life expectancies of big and small dogs (8yrs big, 12yrs small; 10yrs avg). PET Dog Cat INTIAL $565 $365 ANNUAL $695 $705 LIFE SPAN 10yrs 12yrs TOTAL $565+10($695)=$7,515 $365+12($705)=$8,825 As the numbers show, cats cost $1,310 more overall than dogs. As previously stated, a properly trained dog can welcome visitors with courtesy. How does obedience suppress playfulness? Dogs are genetically linked to humans; it is not against their nature to listen to owners. Dogs, even young ones, recognize pointing.4 Having been with man for over 14,000 years, dogs learned human gestures and emotions. Also, why is a cat not eating food good? It is a downside. Dogs, as said above, can be trained to do as told. A properly trained dog will not target birds or mice, but cats may because they can never be fully trained due to their independent nature. I neither claimed wolves and dogs were the same nor dogs' length of existence makes them superior. I meant 14,000 years have made dogs genetically fit for humans. They have developed alongside each other (ex. dogs learned to vocalize to communicate with humans, who usually recognize the emotion the dogs convey).4 Genetics is not friendship, so the comparison is null. Cat intelligence is often misconceived. Dogs actually have bigger brains, caused by social interactions cats avoid.5Dogs are better than cats! SOURCES tinyurl. com/clgtl2h I apologize if I have violated any conducts/rules. I meant no harm. I am new to this site, so things are still foreign to me. I am unsure how I morphed my sources or dodged central questions of the debate, but I will gladly forfeit if I have done wrong.
Dogs are better than cats.

My opponents first statement is subjective, lazy animals might be what a parent or a grand parent wants. So this may be a benefit. Also this is ignoring there are many types of cat breeds, generalizing them into one lazy group is not a good idea. Siamese cats, for example, are very social with people and kids. patient all 9 yards. The Egyptian Mau also is playful. [1] Point being, not all cats are lazy therefore the point fails, and to some people may be a benefit. Dogs also in their old age become inactive. So the argument here is a) false, b) sometimes a benefit, c) backfires. Dogs are only 5 years old and hyper for 5 years. Dogs do need exercise, thats another half hour your spending with him no matter what, rain, snow, sleet, etc walking. Very unpleasant in the sleet. but he makes you do it. Further, thats a half hour you could be working and getting money. It is a huge downside. Also my opponent LIED about cat and dog ownership. According to her source dogs maintenance/supplies cost 200$ more. [2] It proves that dogs need more. Further, their diet is an easy fix and maintenance free. Feed them the right type of food, takes 30 seconds. A dog, however, needs walking bathing etc. A dog is logically has more maintenance. My opponent a) lies about cost, and b) the food problem is easy to fix. Cats take less time, easy. Being receit and withdrawn is why they are respectful, they will show up and have a perky tail wag. None of the obnoxious attacks we see in dogs. [3] Dogs bark loudly, get into space, its terrible. Training a dog against its nature? Ask a dog to come to the table, they WILL eat the food, no matter how trained. A cat wont. This fails as it is a natural thing for dogs to be playful. Even if you get the bark to end, you still got a humping dog or a jumpy one. This train them argument fails. My opponent concedes they kill bugs, (good) but claims they kill birds (ok? ). So do small dogs. Claiming its only a cat thing is false. It refutes your point for ~50% of dogs too. Also an indoor cat does not kill birds ;)Wolves and dogs are different, it took 14k years for them to adapt. Claiming time is superior fails. Many of us have friends. My best friends I have known for only 4 years. Knowing or being there the longest is not a reason for something to be better. My opponents last argument fails. Cats are much smarter then dogs, and have great visual memory. [4] They WILL remember you, whether or not they want to see you again depends. The majority of playful breeds (Siamese the most common cat breed, very social) will want to see you again. If cats are offered love, they give you love and are loyal. [5] Point being this final argument fails. See link for sources:. http://freetexthost.com...P.S. PSS: All of my opponents claims lie on changing what her sources say (conduct violation, give conduct to me), false hoods, or they dodge the central question of the debate. I, CON, have destroyed all of her argunments.
Dogs are better than cats.

Good luck! What good do cats really do? Nothing. They are parasites. They sit around in a host house, waiting to be fed, asserting their territory. (When cats rub against people or furniture, they are actually leaving their scent to warn others that the item belongs to them. Sorry, they don't rub you because they love you.1) Dogs are not parasites like cats; they have functional uses, which range from herding to drug-sniffing. Dogs, as stated, need exercise. Why is that bad? It's not a strenuous amount, and couch potatoes need more active lives. Cats, in reality, are not that maintainable. They are carnivores, unlike the omnivorous dogs. Cats also do not produce arachidonic acid and need large amounts of taurines in their diet. Dogs naturally produce the acid and need less taurine than cats.2 Cats' specific diet actually causes more trouble than good. Additionally, felines, to become even more “manageable,” are toilet-trained. It may be beneficial to the owner, but what about the environment? Gallons of water, flushed for cat feces? Cats, in reality, are very high-maintenance, costing $1,000 more to raise than small dogs overall.3 Cats are not respectable to guests, but reticent, withdrawn to people, straying away. Dogs are protective and do not want their beloved owners hurt by foreigners. If an owner trains the dog correctly, it can be taught to remain silent at certain times or to welcome guests. Dogs, in fact, are very intelligent, acute to human emotions. They are the only animals, besides people, who examine human expressions with the left bias.4 This indicates an ability to read human emotion. Not only do they love us unconditionally, but they also understand us in a way other animals cannot. Cats are self-cleaning, but does that mean they do not require baths? No. Outdoor cats can get extremely dirty, covered by mud or grease. They can get fleas and ticks.5 Because they are nocturnal, cats go outside at night, when wild animals are roaming about. They may encounter a skunk and return home smelling very putrid. Cat urine is also a lot more potent than dog urine, meaning it can easily stink up the house. Cats don’t simply kill bugs, they kill everything! They are completely independent, still hunters at heart.6 They bring home anything from insects to mice to birds. I don’t know how much you want a dead bird in your house. Dogs have developed alongside humans; they are truly man’s best friend. Wolves and humans, social animals who hunt diurnally, first worked together 14,000 years ago, forming a mutual relationship with one another. The two brought more food to both canines and humans. Not only did dogs evolve with humans, they helped humans flourish. Unlike cats, dogs are friendly, beneficial, and loyal. Cats will forget you in a heartbeat; dogs will remember you in their hearts forever! SOURCEStexthoster. com/02kpx
Dogs are better than cats.

My opponent has not selected a format, so I will take the liberty of beginning this debate. I am also on the dog side, but am arguing for cats. My main argument is actually quite simple: cats require little maintenance. Cats themselves are fairly self-sufficient animals. You rarely need to groom/clean them, as they dont get into the dirt as much as dogs and have their own cleaning system, i.e. licking themselves. If you have one cat, you rarely need to clean the litter box and there are certain sands you can get that can actually fix the problem making it longer before you have to clean. Further, cleaning the litter box is better then cleaning the yard. If you have a dog, eventually one must clean the back yard as it is full and when you have a party you dont want your guests being invite by brownies. So you go through, and clean for hours. For a cat, you just get that anti smell stuff and throw it in an outdoor trash. Simple. You can also make the job easier by food/water dispensers (automatic) and automatic litter box cleaners. Further, many dogs need to be walked or exercised often, cats do not. They just do their thing. If its cold, wet, if you have little time -- The dog still needs a walk or else he will be cranky, fat, or destroy things in the house. A cat does not need this maintenance. (http://bit.ly...) As we can see, cats need little or no maintenance, and therefore save you time to do more important things. This info here is a winner for me. Another reason cats are better is because of guests. When you have guests, the dog barks and tries to get into their space. (sometimes not wanted) A cat, however, is respectful and will show itself but not approach always unless invited or approached by the human first. A cat is therefore more respectful. The cat, if it shows itself, is calm and no obnoxious greetings. This argument relates to above. As cats self groom, they smell better. Many dogs play in the mud, are hyper etc. They stink. A cat is quiet and self grooms. Dog brushes and shampoos work, temporarily, but only mask the smells. Cats, however, are always in tip top shape. And no one likes bad odors. Cats even fight bugs for you! If you hate spiders or bees, get a cat. If it moves like a bug it will swat it. A fly getting through your screen will be chased and killed by the cat. A cricket in the home making sounds lures the cat in and then he/she kills it. A bee flying around fascinates the cat. (http://bit.ly...) This being said, we can assume cats will slightly lower the pest count in your home. CONCLUSION: Cats take less maintenance, hence save YOU time to do more important things. Huge plus. cats are less loud/obnoxious to guests, another plus. Cats self groom and smell better. Cats fight bugs and lower bug count in your home. My favorite. VOTE CONOut of room.
Lebron is better than Kobe

I will open my case in the same way my opponent did. I'M SORRY DID LEBRON WIN 5 CHAMPIONSHIPS, 4 ALL STAR MVP'S, 2 FINAL MVP'S, AND IS A 12 TIME MEMBER OF THE THE ALL NBA TEAM? You keep saying that Kobe is SURROUNDED by enormous talent, and you go on to say that Lebron puts up more numbers than Kobe. It is OBVIOUSLY because Lebron has nobody onhis team to score any of the points, whereas Kobe is only VERY VERY slightly behind him in numbers with 20x the accomplishments Lebron has. The fact of the matter is that athletes are gauged on their performance during the playoffs, and Lebron has done nothing but CHOKE. This resolution states Lebron is BETTER than Kobe, without mentioning athletic skill specifically. So when you argue this you do not gauge everything based on athleticism. The truth is Kobe has IMMENSELY more accomplishments than Lebron, and because an athlete is judged on his achievements, Kobe is better than Lebron. CITES http://www.nba.com...
Lebron is better than Kobe

I'm sorry did Kobe win NBA Finals MVP the first 3 times he won an NBA championship? No i didnt think so, and i never said that his team wins championships for him, dont assume. All i said was he played with great talent around him, of course a Kobe's going to be ranked high in postseason scoring because he's played in so many. He has played in so many because his talent around him is phenominal.(1)When compared at age 25 You will see Lebron averaged more points in the playoffs, scored 4000 more points than Kobe did and also says this..."James has finished in the top 10 in MVP voting after all six of his seasons, having placed at No. 9,6,2,5,4 and 1. Bryant didn't show up in MVP voting until his 4th season, when he was 12th. He placed at No.9,5 and 3 in his 5th, 6th and 7th season." Hands down Lebron is the better player. He's presumably on pace to beat all Kobe's stats by Kobe's age. 1) http://www.cleveland.com...
Lebron is better than Kobe

You're basing your argument of "all around" on the fact that Lebron has won more MVP award and has more triple doubles. You're trying to gauge the strength of a player based on his achievements. If you're saying a player amounts to what he has accomplished simply look at Kobe's achievements. Since his second year in the league, Bryant has started in every NBA All-Star Game that has been held with thirteen All-Star appearances, winning the All-Star MVP Award four times (2002, 2007, 2009, and 2011). He is a twelve-time member of the All-NBA team and ten-time All-Defensive team, and is the youngest player ever to receive defensive honors. - To respond to your argument of "his team is good not him", Bryant currently ranks fourth and seventh on the league's post-season scoring and all-time scoring lists, respectively. He is also the all-time leading scorer in Laker's franchise history. So how is it that he LEADS his team in reg/post season scoring, yet his team wins the champ. for him?
Lebron is better than Kobe

So if you win two of five NBA finals MVP awards, it is better than having won less NBA MVP awards. According to the history of MVP awards won in the NBA, Lebron James has won 2 MVP awards in his first 8 seasons (1). Kobe Bryant has won one MVP award and that was in his 11th season. Kobe Bryant didn't win rookie of the year award, Lebron did. Also, when Kobe didn't have Shaq or Pau Gasol or Andrew Bynum Kobe didn't win one championship. He may have scored 81 one game but he didn't carry his team to the finals by himself. Lebron carried his team to the finals with very little talent on his team. Lebron has 29 career triple doubles in 8 years, Kobe only has 17 in 15 years (2). Kobe may be able to score at will but Lebron is a better all around player. 1)http://www.nba.com... 2)http://www.sportscity.com...
Lebron is better than Kobe

I will start off this round by simply responding to, and refuting my opponent's arguments. Then making my own in the next round. -My opponents first argument is that Kobe Bryant won the championships because he was on a better team, and that Lebron James would win if they were to play 1on1. The first problem with his argument is that it is merely a claim with no factual evidence to support it. There is no way to know whether or not this would happen. To respond to his argument that his championships were because he is on a good team, I would like to pint out that he IS part of this team, and when you see that he has also been MVP in TWO of these championships it shows how much he improves his team. -My opponents point about how lebron scored 19 straight to win a game is impressive, bu is it as impressive as scoring 81 points in a single game? A feat that only one other player in history has ever passed? There is no way that Lebron has ever or will ever score 81 points in a game.
Lebron is better than Kobe

Lebron James is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant may have won 5 NBA championships, but that is because he was on good teams. If Lebron James and Kobe Bryant were to play 1 on 1, Lebron would win. Lebron, by himself can win his teams games. He did that in the eastern conference finals when he scored 19 straight points in the 4th quarter to win the game, when he wants to take over the game, there is hardly anyone that can stop him because of his physical attributes. Kobe on the other hand was not even the primary option on his team early in his career, Shaq was. Lebron has always been arguably the best player on every team he has played for, the same cant be said for Kobe.
polygamy should be legalized

I believe that polygamy should be legalized because scientifically it is a better way to spread genes for the better of the human race. also for those people who are super religious god never condones it much like he never straight up condones divorce. also there are numerous other religions that have polygamy as an accepted practice so isn't it against the constitution for them to deny you a wedding permit to marry multiple people. what about those people who love both man and women i myself am dating a bi-sexual and since i cant satisfy all of her needs shouldn't it be ok for her to marry to fulfill both of her sexual urges. if you say they shouldn't because its not right well isn't it the peoples choice so shouldn't it be an option for people to have.