BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal Abuse Should Be a Severe Felony

Now that you stated a very well written argument; here is my response. You stated that seial killers and physcopaths probably mistreeted animals when they were children. The reason for that is because psychopaths' brains have less grey matter in the anterior rostral prefrontal cortex and temporal poles than the brains of the non-psychopathic offenders and non-offenders. These areas of the brain are important for understanding other people's emotions and intentions, and are activated when people think about moral behaviour. So if these parts of the brain are not activitaded then the pshyco is more apt to do things like hurt animals. So with that in mind than here is an statement. People with mental problems should not be out on the streets and should be locked up or euthanized; whatever the preference. Sorry to get off topic but I felt it was necessary to point that out. Also I felt that in your previous answer that you still haven't answered the burden of proof that animal abuse should be a severe penalty. How severe? What would the criteria be for a basic punishment? Are there any variations on punishment based upon the severity of the crime. Following that I rest my case until your next response. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Animal Abuse Should Be a Severe Felony

When I refer to animals, I mean "Dogs, cats, etc", the normal reciepients of animal abuse and mistreatment.Now when I mean abuse I mean people who neglect, abuse and mistreat their animals. Individiuals who abuse their animals to the point of death or near death. I will use the example of the "dog serial killer" in Idaho who reportedly has been wrecking havoc on dog owners in that area. Shooting them execution style, going so far as to blindfold them and torment them before shooting them.If you take a look at accomplished serial killers and physcopaths, I can guarentee that somewhere during their early years, there was mistreatment and murdering of animals. Sociopaths, physcopaths, and murderers, don't start with humans. They start off with animals and then graduate to humans. If you aren't a huge animal lover, you could look at it from this perspective: Prosecuting animal abusers could take a possible sociopath off the streets.
Animal Abuse Should Be a Severe Felony

I do not belive animal abuse should be a severe fellony even though it is very wrong and that I do not approve of it. Well for starters, you never stated the deffinition of an animal. I'm assuming your refering to dogs, fish, cats, and ect... But if your not and you're referring to humans than I forfit. Also you did not define your deffinition of animal abuse; because there is a difference between animal testing for the benefit of science and knowledge. But there also is the kind of abuse where people are jerks and kicks dogs or worse kills them. So I will not start my argument until you clarify your deffinition of animal abuse and what is an animal.
Black Lives Matter Movement has a Legitimate Purpose

First of all you have no numbers or proof to back any of your statements There was tension because the media portayed every black kid shot by police as a brutal evil cop killing an innocent black teenager that did nothing wrong but more often than not this is not the case. And there were a few cases where the cop was wrong but that happens in all communities. Furthermore we can use some numbers here to say whether or not this is important. Lets say that there is one innocent black person killed every 2 weeks by police, that is 26 per year. 100 people are killed by lightning each year do we need a movement for that? Police are going to target african americans more because they commit more crimes. "In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender"s race was "unknown" in 29.1 per cent of cases. What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data " 2011 to 2013 " 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black." (1) While these numbers may seem close they should be nowhere near each other as african americans take up 13% of the population as opposed white which take up 63%. So whites have 5 times the population and commit less crimes, therefore there is no way you can argue that police shouldn't be more suspicious of african americans. "There are many races and cultures that struggle everyday for basic privileges." Let's talk privileges, do whites get the advantage of getting hundreds of points on their sat just for being white? No that is black people (2) Also pro if you could do me a favor and tell me what rights african americans are being refused that would be fantastic. 1. (http://www.dailywire.com...) 2. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...)
Black Lives Matter Movement has a Legitimate Purpose

In 2012 more whites were killed by police than blacks, but in late 2015 and much of 2016, there was tension between the black community and policemen due to unnecessary beatings. Not shootings, but beatings. Police officers were physically abusing, and occasionally shooting blacks out of "fear" even when the suspect was proved to be unarmed. Blacks were also being harassed for simply looking suspect even when proved to be going about their daily lives. Being abused for looking suspect is not how you treat a living being. I'm not sure what world you live in, but there are many races and cultures that struggle each day for basic privileges or humane treatment. Just because you have not witnessed the inhumane beatings, the unnecessary shootings, the still-present racism and discrimination, or any other very real case against blacks and colors, doesn't mean they don't exist. I have seen kids at local schools be teased STILL because of their skin color, bullied on the Internet, and excluded from activities due to their skin color. I have seen numerous videos of whites calling out a colored person for the dumbest things and screaming at them telling them to return to their home country. I'm not even 50% black, but I've had someone tell me to go back to Africa. Hilarious how discriminative and ignorant these people can be.
Black Lives Matter Movement has a Legitimate Purpose

For it to be a legitmate cause it has to have some sort of opposition. Almost nobody says that black lives do not matter, and if you did the research then you would know that 50% of cop shootings were white and 26% were black. Another statistic a cop is 18.5 times more likely to be shot than an unarmed black man is to be shot by a cop. (1) Now we address your other issue of people not treating black people like humans, when in the last 5-10 years has that happened? 1. (http://www.dailywire.com...)
Black Lives Matter Movement has a Legitimate Purpose

All lives matter, more specifically, the lives of every human entity has purpose and equal rights under our nation's laws and beliefs. Correct? If all lives matter, then can someone please justify the unnecessary beatings from Caucasian cops being forcefully given to a large handful of colored individuals of a range of ages and gender. These beatings portrayed themselves in a pattern that many identified and became upset with. What happened to all lives matter? It wasn't there, it was being neglected in it's entirety, and so the colored community, specifically the black community, decided to begin a movement of their own. Black lives matter was not a movement created to send the message that black lives deserve a higher privilege over others, or that black lives should be identified separately, but rather that they should be noticed as human beings, and they should actually be included in the all lives matter movement. Being able to drink from the same fountain isn't going to satisfy us in the 21st century. We have come much farther than that, and I, and everyone involved in the movement, believe it is time to start treating us JUST like everyone else. Being black is not a religion, or a character trait, a feeling, or a choice. Being black is something you're born as. It is a race. Being white is another example of a race, obviously. So, if a white person is treated humanely during an interaction or altercation with a police officer, then why are a majority of black individuals treated differently? ALL LIVES MATTER, but I have presented numerous reasons as to why Black Lives Matter is still a legitimate movement.
Tim coob

Rebuttals: Pro claims that he/she is too 'smort' for me to 'compreheehend' him/her, however, as Pro isn't even able to spell 'smart' and 'comprehend' properly or structure his/her sentences correctly; one very easily establishes that he/she is not smart at all. In fact, pros case is incomprehensible, not comprehensible. If Pro is so passionate about Tim Coob, he/she should've defined the terms of this debate and expounded on the resolution; in addition to presenting better arguments.
Tim coob

'Wen th Sun shine on Erth 2 Tim point r creetd on oposit side ov Ert nown as miday an midnit. Waer th 2 majr tim forcs join synrgy creetates 2 new minr Tim point we reconize as Sonup an Sondown. The 4 equidistant tim point cn b cinsidrd as Tim Squar imprntd on the sircl ov erf. In 1 rowtatin ov th erf sfeer eech Tim cornr point rowtats throo th othr 3 cornr tim point thus creeting 16 cornrs 96 ours an 4 simltanous 24 our Days wit in 1 rowtatin ov erf equatd 2 a Higher Order ov life tim coob.' No.
Tim coob

Wen th Sun shine on Erth 2 Tim point r creetd on oposit side ov Ert nown as miday an midnit. Waer th 2 majr tim forcs join synrgy creetates 2 new minr Tim point we reconize as Sonup an Sondown. The 4 equidistant tim point cn b cinsidrd as Tim Squar imprntd on the sircl ov erf. In 1 rowtatin ov th erf sfeer eech Tim cornr point rowtats throo th othr 3 cornr tim point thus creeting 16 cornrs 96 ours an 4 simltanous 24 our Days wit in 1 rowtatin ov erf equatd 2 a Higher Order ov life tim coob
School Uniforms are unnecessary

Wearing school uniforms are going to have a minimal if any effect on the equality of students. People are unequal its a fact. Some people are taller, shorter, stronger, weaker, smarter, dumber, and taking away clothing is not going to change any of that. I really couldn't care less about a student's individuality. You go to school to learn not to have a fashion show. What I am arguing is that school uniforms are unnecessary, but I would like to address your point of expressing ones self threw interaction. Wouldn't this leave out the shy kids who would normally have no issue expressing them selves threw the clothing they wear, and wouldn't that replace a "fashion arms race" with a "personality arms race"? Also your point on self esteem makes no sense. A school uniform is the ultimate form of pressuring someone to dress a certain way. While normally if you dressed out of the norm you might get picked on a bit, but when you show up to school out of uniform you are often forced to stay home. Schools are about learning and I don't think its fair to enforce a uniform that can reduce the time spent learning. I doubt that school uniforms save anyone money. Kids still need clothes and parents are still going to buy clothes. Id like to bring up that Finnish Schools have no uniform, but are the best in the world. To end this debate Ill address your closing statement. Those kids were killed because they wore expensive items in bad neighborhood hoods. The kids would have worn those items outside of school. While its a tragedy I doubt a school uniform is going to end these issues that are caused by other aspects in life. https://www.theguardian.com... http://www.independent.co.uk...
School Uniforms are unnecessary

Wearing school uniforms can be helpful in many ways. First, having matching outfits can make all students feel equal. Poor students would no longer feel excluded because they were not wearing name brand clothing like the richer kids. In addition, social status would be less of an issue because everyone would be wearing the same clothing. One of the biggest arguments against school uniforms is that students would lose their sense of individuality. I believe that uniforms will improve students" individuality because they will have to express themselves through their personality and attitude, rather than through an expensive pair of shoes or a brand name pair of jeans. Uniforms will improve self-esteem in the students because they will not feel pressured to dress a certain way. While bullying may not stop, use of uniform at least prevents students who aren't dressed fashionably or according to the latest trends, from getting picked on for their choice of clothes. School uniforms can save parents a lot of money as they then only need to buy their kids casual clothes to wear on the weekends. Otherwise, parents need to constantly replenish their child's wardrobe with the latest fashions, which can be very expensive. They would need to provide clothes for 5 days of every week plus weekends, sports and club activities. This can be economically taxing for parents, and the constant demand for new clothes will be very stressful. Uniforms are a special money saver during the growing years when kids outgrow their clothes every few months. In today's schools, adolescents are killing each other over designer jackets and expensive sneakers. With school uniforms, incidents of theft and assault are down. Uniforms help eliminate violent crimes. https://www.frenchtoast.com... https://www.buzzle.com... http://altweb.astate.edu...
School Uniforms are unnecessary

Only bringing awareness to the school is even more pointless. I can see wearing school logos at sporting events, but not it being apart of the uniform. As for your point about not dressing like sluts. I agree that there should be a dress code, but not a uniform the two are different. Girls shouldn't dress like whores, especially teen girls, but if the boys are too busy focused on that, and not paying attention to class that is their fault. As for your last point, it has been proven time and time again the way someone dresses does little if anything to reduce rape. To sum it up, yes schools should have a dress code, but a uniform is unnecessary. https://www.law.georgetown.edu... https://www.psychologytoday.com... https://www.washingtonpost.com...
School Uniforms are unnecessary

School Uniforms, while they may look tasteful, are unnecessary for most if not all schools. Students or schools have to dish out extra cash for clothing that adds little if any academic value as studies has shown. I also doubt that school advertising on uniforms is going to contribute to gaining more students as if the parents have a choice in where they send their child to school they are going look for the safest schools with the best academic performance, not because they saw a shirt with a logo, and the second reason I doubt that advertisement would work on school uniforms is based on the fact that you wear the uniform mostly in school so only people who already go to said school would see it. I understand that sometimes they wear their uniforms to special events, but a majority of the time spent in the uniform is in the school. As for your last two arguments, they are both non-issues. Identification's main benefit is safety, but nowadays many schools are getting more and more secure, and I doubt those few extra seconds picking out an outfit are going to affect anything. http://freakonomics.com... https://www.greatschools.org... https://www.brookings.edu... https://www.npr.org...
batman vs superman

Batman is better than superman for many different reasons. One, he has a sidekick, which gives him twice the man power and gives the enemies a disadvantage of one against two. Two, he is more realistic. If there was going to be a superhero today it would be batman because superman would not exist. No one today has super powers so superman would not be real. Three, batman has a bat cave for hiding and that way nobody can hind him. Four, an argument that might come up is that superman can fly and batman can't but batman also has the 'bat mobile' for transportation.
why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for president.

His support may be among younger people, but that doesn't mean they don't vote. Again, I'm not sure about how it is where you are, but around here, many of the polling places are high schools and college campuses and at my high school many of the teachers will excuse you from the day's homework and material covered in class if you take that time to go down to the gym and vote. I am still 17 but all of my friends who are 18 plan to vote in our primary which I believe is in mid-February. Of course Huckabee is going to be dominant in his region, but Paul's ability to win the nomination is not contingent on placing first in every state. First is predicted to be largely inconsistent, so a good string of second and thirds could result in enough delegates to do the job. And if you have any doubt about the national media's acknowlegment of Ron Paul's legitimacy watch this: . http://www.youtube.com...
why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for president.

Your argument about Ron Paul being very popular on the internet is a valid one but unfortunately the vast majority of that support consists of young people and they are neither registered as republicans or do not vote in large numbers even if they are eligible. The largest voting block in the Republican party are white, over 50 years old and members of the religious right.As the primaries move into the next stage in the south Huckaby will be the outright favorite with the only challenge coming from Rudy Guliani, possibly in Florida. As far as the national media is concerned watch the news programs this weekend such as Face the Nation and see if Ron Paul is even acknowledged to exist. They won't even bring up his name unless it's to announce that he is withdrawing from the election. In closing let me say that it was fun debating this issue with you. Unfortunately I still feel that we are both doomed to disappointment on this issue and Ron Paul at best will be a third party candidate which means he has no chance at all.
why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for president.

Well I'm not sure which middle class people you are asking, because the ones around here realize that their benefits will be minimal if they get them at all and are ready to cut their losses and start investing in private markets, if only there wasn't a social security tax they would have the money to do that. And that's not just people under 40, my parents who are in their mid-40's feel that way. Besides, Ron Paul supports continuing social security for those that have already paid into the system, it's not like he's just going to cut it on the spot. Straw polls obviously mean nothing this early in the race and the media realizes that, they only use them to compare the big names. Win a primary and that's a different story, they can't ignore him if he pulls that off. It appears likely that he can do that in a few upcoming primaries. Of course if you're referring only to television, you'll be disappointed. They will pick up coverage with a win, but nobody can expect him to get the same attention there as a Romney or Giuliani, his big following is on radio and more importantly the internet. Internet advertising is considered by many to be the most important form of media in this election. He'll be fine.
why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for president.

Middle class Americans are in love with the entitlements that they do receive. Ask anyone of them over the age of 40 if they are willing to give up Social Security checks in their future and they will do a Dan Rostenkowski number on you(ittle white haired old ladies will beat you over the head with their umbrellas). As far as winning will then cause the media to pay attention goes Ron Paul has won numerous straw polls and the media just ignores it. Recently they went so far as to remove him from the debate sponsored by Fox news. In the debate sponsored by ABC that he managed to be included in they simply ignored him as if he wasn't even there. More of the same will simply prevent him from gaining the attention required to force the media to cover him fairly.
why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for president.

#1. Ron Paul is anti-entitlement. The majority of American citizens are in the middle or upper-middle class, they recieve very few entitlements and the ones that they do get, such as social security, are starting to disappear as the taxes associated with them continue to go up. They don't want their hard earned money to support people who they believe don't pull their weight in society. His popularity is growing among fiscal conservatives and even pro-entitlement social liberals are willing to compramise and because they like Ron Paul's foreign policy and disagree with some of the more radical views of Hillary and Obama. #2. and #3. Ron Paul has low name recognition and the media doesn't acknowledge him. Your second point is a direct result of number three. If media coverage goes up, so will name recognition. He hasn't been popular in some of the early states like Iowa and Wyoming because he is a fiscal conservative and those states are more socially conservative. Look for a stronger showing in the more independent New Hampshire. If his network of internet supporters continue to provide this level of financial backing he should be able to hang in through some of the more independent states that have primaries/caucuses throughout January and February, if he can even win one of these his coverage will skyrocket. Besides, he's made a few t.v. appearances recently and it appears more networks are recognizing him.
why Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for president.

Before I go any further let me state that I am a supporter of Ron Paul and believe in nearly all of his basic political positions/beliefs. Having said this I just can't see any way for him to be nominated in the present political climate of the U.S. I am hoping that someone can convince me otherwise by this debate and therefore give me hope that all is not lost. #1. Ron Paul is anti entitlement. The majority of the population is 100% in favor of entitlements as long as they believe they are the ones going to receive them #2. Ron Paul has very low name recognition and many of the people who do know it consider him either a fringe candidate with very little chance of winning or just think he is a little crazy. #3. The main stream media refuse to acknowledge Ron Paul as a viable political candidate. This is easily verified by any neutral/non opinionated perusal of the coverage he does receive