BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal rights

It seems that the only flaw you focused on would be "emotions". Very common for most people debating in fact. But actually, ALL people have emotions for animals. You may think that animals are only 'entities' for food. But I'd just like to clarify that they are more than that. Scientists made an experiment in a hospital. They took two men with a common status in health (meaning neither of them were healthier or more ill) and gave one of them something to take care of. A pet or a plant, leaving the other with nothing to feed, shower, or play with. They monitored them both until one of them felt better (mentally AND physically). Guess which one that was? You know the answer. Pets help us live a healthier lifestyle. We live longer with a dog or cat to care for. We always feel better with pets. Now, you may think I'm only focusing on pets and not animals in general, but every animal is important (except for wasps. They're spawns of Satan). The food chain would be ruined if one of the carnivores were extinct. Let's take the aquatic food chain as an example: Shark > Tuna > Smaller fish (sardines etc) > Krill > plankton This is a simplified version. Let's say that the last shark in the world died. The tuna population will grow with nothing to keep it at bay (Humans aren't enough). More tuna means more sardines to be eaten. So the sardines are soon hunted to extinction, so the KRILL population grows and so on. I think you got the point. And again, humans ARE animals so you wouldn't have the right to vote on a debate. How many times do I have to tell you? Ugh, the irony. Many animals are already tortured by unethical cosmetics companies. So the question we should be focusing on shouldn't be "Should animals have rights?" It should be "Should animal testing be legal?" Definitely not from what I know of. I want you to search 'animals getting tested on' and take a look at their pictures. Do they look like they were treated fairly to you? Probably not. They would have matted fur, red and bloody eyes,deep cuts and wounds. You say they shouldn't have rights but torturing them to this extent? That's just unacceptable! If you care for them, at least stop buying products that have been tested on animals so that the company might shut down (that is if enough people boycott it). What I'm trying to say here is if you don't believe that animals should have rights then fine. I respect your opinion. But they all have importance and shouldn't be treated unfairly. All of them help keep the ecosystem alive so should at least show them some respect, okay. I'll be busy for a while (you can tell from the length of this argument) so I'm might not be able to reply to your next argument. Bye.
Animal rights

Animals are the ones who save our lives not the other way around. If you EVER learned something new, it will be about how animals can also have emotional attachments. A man raised a lion cub and when the lion grew too old, it had to be kept in a reserve. Later on, the man visited the reserve, saying he wanted to see his old friend. The workers their said that the lion probably won't remember him. But what happened? Oh, yes! The lion, now the alpha of his pack, ran toward the man to nuzzle him! See what I mean? Next... I am disgusted by the fact that this debate isn't 100% pro. You people should be ashamed of your selves. Sharks only attack around five people a year mistaking us for fish, while we humans kill thousands of them a year by just cutting off their fins for some fancy soup and letting them drown. You'd probably say: "But how can they drown? They're fish! They have GILLS." Well let me tell you something. They have to keep swimming or else they die. Too bad they can't swim without FINS. And what's our excuse for killing them? "They're DANGEROUS". The only five people they attack annually look like fish riding their surfboards. And after that, they swim away. They don't even finish off the humans, knowing that they aren't their proper diet. So the only deaths caused are by the fact that the humans bleed to death before they reach the hospital. Point given. http://heavy.com... Have you seen this? If not, please do. Our audacity to insult animals has come to point where they save other animals' but we still say that they are vicious cannibals with no respect for others. We take down a birds nest because it was in our way. How would YOU like to see a giant come over, pick up your self made house and throw it away? But even though there are others here to help build you another one, you have to live your whole life fearing that another giant would take it down. I'm just looking at the little bird's perspective here. What about the big and strong gorilla that looks unstoppable having his tree taken down and was unable to save his FAMILY from the hunters? He'll live the rest of his life regretting every decision he made. Imagine that happening to YOU. You'll probably go into alcohol or commit suicide, but gorillas can't do that so you'll just have to deal with your emotions. That's why they endure a lot more than us, and that just proves that they're superior to humans. Have you heard of 'putting yourself in someone else's shoes'? Yeah, I want you to try and do that with every animal you can think of that has fallen to humans, okay? I'm known to respect others opinions so if you spot something false in this argument, please tell me. Oh and by the way, humans ARE animals so if you think they have no rights then you have no right to vote on this debate. Best regards, An animal lover <3
Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

I don't care anymore. I knew someone would do this, so I'll just say this: If a homosexual went through basic, then was open about it, he would be barred from the military. If he said we shouldn't have a military, then he would still be barred. Just because his "job is terminated", doesn't mean it no longer exists. It does without him. I detest how people twist the resolution like that when, in my eyes, it makes NO SENSE. I will not and refuse to be moved into opposing the military with ridiculous arguments that hold no ground. If the military, like my opponent contends, is abolished, they would be NO JOBS there to apply for and be denied on the basis of homosexuality. The entire debate is based upon this question for the public: Is not having a military make it alright to ban homosexuals? Kind of pointless isn't it? Yeah, I thought so.
Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

I disapprove of how my opponent depriciates the value of our military, especially as an American. Our military exists to provie us with freedom. Every word that you write, every letter, bulges with the blood of those who sacrifieced themselves for you so you have the freedom of speech, freedom which you seem not to value. When I go into the military, I want to protect those who are innocent, and it shames me, marrs my p[pride of societ, when I hear things like this. If other countries could fend off armies wwith civilans, they wouldn've done it. Major countries do not. You emphasize war and killing are bad, but on a note acknowledge defense nessicary. That's what the US military does. We are a democracy, so we don't "invade and attack" countries, we seek to help an existing gov. You clearly have issue with the military, and this is the the debate to have your contentions. I refuse to debate your proposed contentions since it holds no ground and it begins an entirely new debate: "We shouldn't have a military." and does not support this resolution. There was one thing though, about your speech I want to bring up: As for civilans owning arms and protecting their country: If the desire to protect your country is all you need in order to defend it, who not allow homosexuals in the miliitary?!!?! Your defense offends me. (Please post (with valid arguments) either Sat. afternoon or later, else I can't partake in the next round, because I don't have computer access this weekend.)
Homosexuals should not be allowed in the military, even under the Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

Since Aff has the burdon of proof, I will allow him/her to go first. I, as Con, assume the Burdon of Clash. I would sincerely appreciate this being an articulate and reasonable debate. As a noteable side note, I am enlisting next year, and I am a homosexual. Without further ado, let us begin.
Dolphins should be legally defined as non-human persons.

I'm not interested in employing any kind of formal debating format here. I would simply like an interesting and fruitful debate. I would prefer to address my opponent directly, and invite him or her to do the same. This post will be my introductory argument. I would argue that the main value of human life is derived from the human mind, or the human intelligence. The chief reason why we consider the killing of a human being a punishable offence, while the mass extermination of bacteria is something people are content to do while cleaning their bathroom, is that humans are considered to be 'sentient'. Humans think creatively, feel deep emotion, and experience happiness and misery on complex levels. Hence a human life is precious. Estimating the intelligence of different animal species is notoriously difficult. Indeed, estimating the relative intelligence of human beings raised in different cultures is difficult in itself. However science, though imperfect, is the best tool we have. Current scientific thinking attributes an EQ rating when comparing the intelligence of different species: http://www.allthetests.com... http://www.science20.com... The totality of research on dolphin behaviour to date has lead researchers to place the EQ of the Bottlenose Dolphin at 5.3, compared to the human being's EQ rating of 7.6. This means we can say that a dolphin is at least 70% as intelligent as a human. Perhaps this is a simplistic way of looking at things, but I would argue thusly: if, for example, a human being receives a 20 year prison sentence for deliberately murdering another human being, then would it not be reasonable to give somebody a penalty 70% as great for the killing of a dolphin, i.e. 14 years in prison. This to me seems logically and ethically sound. There is no absolute difference between the intelligence of a human and the intelligence of a dolphin. Both animals merely reside at different positions on a spectrum of intelligence. Were I in charge of things I would probably also factor the level at which a species was endangered into the penalty I would give a human for the wilful slaughter of a dolphin, but this is to some extent beside the point. What to me seems most crucial is that over time better understanding of dolphin behaviour and culture has seen a clear trend on our estimates of dolphin intelligence being revised upwards as we learn more about them. So, if mind is the primary element of the value of a human life, then surely dolphin intelligence should guide us in apportioning the legal status of a dolphin life.
Dane Cook's stand-up is overrated and not funny

It's not a surprise to me that Dane Cook did not get a place on comedy central's list. There are a few things I Would like to say in response, however. First, it is quite early in Dane Cook's career. When Lenny Bruce's career began, he was not well liked by the vast majority of experienced comedians. He is now number 3 on the list you specified. Second, the list is concerning the top 100 comedians of all time. This debate, however, is whether Dane Cook is funny or not. Just because he is not the best in the world, it doesn't mean he's not funny. Whether he's funny or not is simply a matter of opinion. But, if you want to use technical arguments, then so will I. Currently, Dane Cook's album Rough Around The Edges: Live From Madison Square Garden is number 66 on the Billboard Top 100 album's list. Also, Madison Square Garden seats over 19,000 for concerts. I highly doubt any comedian could draw a crowd like that if they weren't funny. You might argue that just because it seats that much, it doesn't mean he sold out. Well, in response to that I would say that no one would record a live album for a show that didn't have a gigantic crowd.
Dane Cook's stand-up is overrated and not funny

Your argument in essence is that Dane Cook is a great comedian because he makes people laugh. The problem I have with this logic is that practically no one would be excluded from a list of great comedians according to this standard. When it comes to arts and entertainment, practically every artist or entertainer will have some type of audience. You then explain what you feel is needed to make someone great in various fields. You state "For a writer it's whether people actually take [the] time to contemplate what they are saying." There are plenty of people in this world that read and take the time to contemplate what Danielle Steele is saying in her novels. But this does not make her works any less superficial nor does it qualify her as a great writer. There are artists that merely splatter paint on the canvas. There are many people that will ponder the hidden meaning behind such nonsense and contemplate the emotions expressed in the painting. But this does not make such a person a great artist. You also state "For a musician [it's] whether people dance (or headbang in some cases)." There are plenty of people that have gone out to a club and danced to the music of Britney Spears. This does not make her a great musician. What I'm basically getting at is that your definition of greatness excludes no one. Its only factor is whether or not the person has an audience. And regardless of how terrible someone may be, you can rest assured that there will be an audience. By this logic then everyone would become great. And when everyone is great...no one is! I will also refer you to the list put out by Comedy Central of the top 100 comedians. This will refer you to a link that shows the names: http://spydr1.typepad.com... After reading through all 100 names, you can see that Dane Cook does not appear on the list. This list was voted on by top comedians and verified by the Friars Club. Perhaps there were disagreements on the order, but the comedians present on the list deserved to be there. Dane Cook's absence from this list shows that his greatness of which you speak is lacking.
Dane Cook's stand-up is overrated and not funny

Dane Cook is a great comic. There is only one thing that really makes a good comic. That is the ability to make people laugh. That's all it is. It's very simple. A good entertainer of any kind is not defined by the individual opinion, but by the group reaction. For a comic it's whether people laugh. For a musician it whether people dance (or headbang in some cases). For a writer it's whether people actually take he time to contemplate what they are saying. A great comic makes people laugh. Not necessarily you as the individual, but people in general. Dane Cook has certainly met and surpassed that standard.
Dane Cook's stand-up is overrated and not funny

Dane Cook is a stand-up comedian whose popularity remains an enigma. There are plenty of stand-up comics out there that are funnier than Dane Cook. Yet he seems to sell out shows in large arenas and has a large following. I have been watching stand-up comedy for years, and I simply don't get it. In my opinion, he is extremely overrated and not funny. (Note: I am only referring to his stand-up. Movies have scripts written by others, and if he were ever given a funny line in one of his movies, that cannot be counted towards his stand-up routine.)
Dane Cook's stand-up is overrated and not funny

While I don't deny that a few of Cook's routines are less than completely original, that doesn't make him not funny. I have said repeatedly that whether someone is funny is strictly a matter of opinion, and nothing more; but yet again, I will have to combat technical arguments. When I said "early in his career," I meant his career in major network entertainment, as opposed to small club performances. I apologize for my lack of clarity in that statement. But, if, as you so cleverly stated, he has been doing standup since 1990, I'm pretty confident he's written at least a few routines alone. By the way, I am a big Lewis Black fan. Good liberal. You said that, "A comedian that is forced to use other people's jokes and pan them off as his own is not funny." That is almost correct. You keep using the term funny as if it is a statement of fact. IT IS NOT. Funniness (I guess that would be that correct term) is a quality defined by the individual, not by the scientific method. For example, one might say a joke that is directed towards a particular ethnic group. Let's use the Judeo-Christian faith for example. A great comedian by the name of George Carlin (again, a good liberal) once did an entire routine about how he didn't think religion was rational and used this comment: "I don't pray... because I wouldn't presume on a friendship. People are praying trillions and trillions of times a day just for a a few new things a like a new car or a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday: His day off." Now I, being an Atheist, found this joke incredibly funny. A priest or the Pope, for example, probably would not like it so much. Again, funniness is a quality defined by the individual. Please tell me that you understand my point about opinion; because I'm not going to to lie. You are shattering me with the technical arguments. The opinion thing is basically all I've got here, but completely derails your "funny" arguments. To basically sum it all up, what I really am trying to say is that the very idea about having a statistical debate about something that is purely centered around opinion is irrational and a waste of time. I realize I didn't really stress that point earlier but it had just occurred to me a few moments ago.
Australian Rules Football is a better sport than American Football

The resolution is the title of the debate. Pro will have BoP to prove that Australian Rules Football is a better sport than American Football1st Rd for acceptance Australian Rules Football: The code of football played in the Australian Football League (http://en.wikipedia.org...)American Football: The code of football played in the National Football League (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Better: Of a more excellent type or quality Note: This is not a debate about the leagues themselves (although they may form part of your arguments). It is a debate about which is the better sport!
THBT Love Marriages are better than Arranged Marriages.

While the Pro stated "Most of the time, the women are too scared to run away from their husbands because it would be an insult to their family and will humiliate both families," in their example Manjali did leave her abusive husband[3]. Not only that, but she, with the help of her children, was able to return to the house of Rakesh and " are currently on speaking terms and living together as a family." While domestic violence is common in India, it is not an arranged marriage only problem, It is more of a problem with traditional viewpoints towards women. While India has a domestic violence rate of 70%, Peru, where arranged marriages are the exception, has a domestic violence rate of 69%[4].The U.S. Department of State reports that in Peru "Women's organizations noted that alcohol abuse and traditional attitudes toward women aggravated the problems of rape and sexual abuse, particularly in rural areas[4]." Arranged marriages are not the cause of domestic violence and a recent study reveals"the cultural underpinnings to domestic violence, especially in India, where the study found a woman's risk of being beaten, kicked or hit rose along with her level of education," because "Educated women are aware of their rights[5]." Though domestic violence is a problem in arranged marriages, it is more of a result of the cultural suppression of women in cultures that practice arranged marriage and even in those that do not. [3] http://womennewsnetwork.net... [4] http://www.state.gov... [5] http://womensenews.org... (I would just like to state that these views are not my own, I'm simply supporting them in the debate)
THBT Love Marriages are better than Arranged Marriages.

If that is the case, then please explain what happened to Manjali Bhagwandas. She had been shown one photograph of the man with whom she was destined to spend the rest of her life. Prior to the wedding, all she knew about him was that he worked for an oil mill. When she was 18, Manjali"s parents selected a 21-year-old man named Rakesh to be her husband. As part of the wedding ceremony, the groom"s parents were given a dowry of a black-and-white television, jewelry, a cabinet, and utensils. Two months after the wedding, Manjali was preparing dinner and relaxing in her home. Rakesh arrived home in the late afternoon, showered and took a walk by himself. When he returned, he approached Manjali and kept hitting her repeatedly. That day marked the beginning of physical abuse throughout the marriage. Dr. Ramani Sundaresan, a New Delhi psychotherapist, says she finds more abuse in arranged marriages than in love marriages. Just because the divorce rates in India are lower than the divorce rate in America, doesn't mean that the women are not abused or raped. Most of the time, the women are too scared to run away from their husbands because it would be an insult to their family and will humiliate both families. But don't you see? Because of family ties and societal norms, running away would have put more pressure on the abused wives. That is why love marriages are better. We get to choose our own partners than our partners be chosen for us. Most times, parents are eluded by the wealth of the chosen partner than have their child's best intention at heart. Taken from;http://womennewsnetwork.net...
THBT Love Marriages are better than Arranged Marriages.

This is my first debate, so comments and feedback are much appreciated. One issue I'd like to get out of the way, as it may become a misunderstanding, is the difference between a forced and arranged marriage. An arranged marriage is usually between two families of similar status and is not a definite decision and the first meeting is used to see whether the two parties can get along, if new suitor will be found[1]. A forced marriage is where one party is forced to married to another usually without the consent of the forced participant. While a love marriage may be built on a fire that cools over time, an arranged marriage grows hotter as physical attraction becomes less important and a deeper "spiritual" attraction develops instead, growing hotter over time. While defining love is something philosophers have tried to define for centuries, the textbook definition is "strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties", so love can grow over a period of time just as affection for something or someone can grow. Proof of this is India's, where arranged marriages are the norm, 1.1% divorce rate whereas the U.S., where the inverse is true, has a 50% divorce rate, proving that arranged marriages last longer[2]. While this may be partly due to the social stigma associated with divorce in India, if the marriage was completely intolerable there would be substantially more. Since arranged marriages usually are between families that know each other, backgrounds and family values are usually the same, meaning less conflict can occur due to religion and other such differences. My goal in this debate is not to prove that arranged marriages are better, but rather that they are simply different. One starts passionately, but has the ability to dull over time, and the other can grow more passionate over time. [1] http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com... [2] http://www.divorcerate.org...