BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dogs are better than Cats

I would like to point out a few errors that kyro90 has made. FirstHe indeed rebutted my points in his own way but with all of his own opinions and not facts. He also questioned both statements in the very beginning thus giving helping me. These are statements and cannot be posed into questions just by simply adding a question mark. If a statement does have a question mark though, that shows uncertainty or hesitancy in the opponents answer. The usefulness of cats catching mice is very slim and some cats even bring in live mice from outside into the house. SecondCats cannot be trained the way dogs do and their usefulness as their utility is even questioned. Cats are attached to a place rather than a person and as such, will be less likely to take direct orders from an owner as would a dog. ThirdMy opponent is says "dogs have keen abilities, that can be at some disadvantage. Cats are quiet, patient and never beg. But, dogs are mean, sometimes rabid, and they can definitely hurt someone. ". This is true for some dogs and some cats. Cats need much more training than a dog. What kyro90 is basically saying is ALL dogs are mean, sometimes rabid, and they can definitely hurt someone and ALL Cats are quiet, patient and never beg. . http://www.youtube.com...I'm pretty sure his video doesn't show that the Dog is trying definitely hurt the baby. He is rescuing the baby. . http://www.youtube.com...This cat actually hits the baby instead of being quiet and patient. Also, when you say cats are quiet, you are saying that cats never meow, never make noise, or make any form of sound frequency whatsoever. When you cats are patient, you are saying that cats always wait and never get impatient. Now that I have rebutted all of your points that you were uncertain about as implied at the very beginning of this debate, I will state my argumentFirstOnce again, kyro90 is very unsure of himself because he has questioned a his statement by adding a question mark at the end of his argument topic. kyro90's opinion of "Dogs are always hungry, they cannot ever get enough food sometimes and they would sometimes hurt you just to get it. " is wrong. Dogs normally on average eat 3 servings a day just like we do. If the dog is bigger than the average size dog, they will normally eat 4-5 servings a day from from a full bowl. if the dog is smaller than the average size dog, it will normally eat 2-3 servings a day from a bowl full of dog food. I hardly refer to that as the statement "Dogs are always hungry, they cannot ever get enough food". Cats living is solitude isn't very much a good thing most of the time. they wont be able to help owners like dogs do and you implied that earlier on, cats can be just as helpful as dogs such as fetching the newspaper. If they don't receive the order from the owner and are living in solitude somewhere in the house, how can they be useful? ConclusionI thank my opponent once again for a speedy rely and a good debate. This is very interesting and I am eagerly anticipating his next argument. Sources. http://ths.gardenweb.com...http://ezinearticles.com...http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Dogs are better than Cats

Well, First thing on the agenda is I would like to refute your arguments if you would allow me....First: Cats can act the same as a dog. They can be loyal? They can stick by someones side if that owner was a very loving and caring owner? A cat can be loyal but comparing dogs and cats would be like comparing apples and oranges. They both are tasty in a differnet way so to speak. What im saying is that cats have their own type of loyalty. Cats version of loyalty is that it can be very helpfull around the house or anywhere they are needed. For example, a cat can help you get rid of mice that are in the house.Second: Cats can also be trained to do the things that dogs can do. If you are saying that dogs (but not cats) can do these things than you can also be refering that ONLY alligators eat meat and crocodiles are not allowed to?Third: Though dogs have keen abilities, that can be at some disadvantage. Cats are quiet, patient and never beg. But, dogs are mean, sometimes rabid, and they can definitly hurt someone. So although dogs can hunt down prisoners and tackle them to the ground, that is one one way you can use the dogs rabid senses and abilities to assist and now injure.Now it is time for my agrument.....Less work?Now although dogs are sometimes very nice and always want your attention, that does come with some disadvantages. Dogs are always hungry, they cannot ever get enough food sometimes and they would sometimes hurt you just to get it. But on the other hand, cats love to live in solitude so you just have to leave some food and a litter box and you can pet him whenever you want without having to be hurt whenever you pat him or stroke their fur.That sadly, has been the end of my debate and I hope you guys liked my arguments. :)Source(s):Truth that cat owners have better degrees:http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Loyalty difference: http://www.helium.com...
Dogs are better than Cats

I hope you will enjoy this debate and have a copious amount of fun. From this round on, the debating will commence and will follow the rules that have been stated above in round 1. There will be no more rule making or tweaking of any kind to the rules or anything that might alter the rules. First Dogs are friendly and loyal pets. They will stick to your side no matter what. Not even death can break the bonds that a human and a dog can have together. In fact, dogs are so loyal and friendly that they have earned the title "Man's best friend". One example of a loyal dog is Hachiko. Hachiko was a dog that waited for his master every day for nine to ten years even though he died at work. Because of this, Hachiko is dubbed as a symbol of loyalty. Another example of a loyal dog is Ruswarp. Ruswarp was a 14 year old border collie and his master was Graham Nuttall. Nuttall and Ruswarp went hiking, but did not return as scheduled. Then, 11 weeks later, another hiker found Nuttall's body with Ruswarp standing guard. This shows the immense loyalty that Ruswarp had for his master. For 11 weeks Ruswarp stood over his master's body, knowing he was dead, but still standing by his side. . http://www.youtube.com... Second Dogs can be used to fetch newspapers. They are only obeying there owners command and are trained to do so. This is shown in the video I have provided above. It can only be assumed (which is true) that dogs can be trained to fetch an assortment of items such as remotes, cups, papers, bags, etc. .. Third Dogs can be used in the military, war, and prisons. They have a keen sense of smell and good eye. If prisoners try to escape dogs that blend into the dark and night start barking and chasing the escapees. When they catch them, they hold off the escapees till the prison guards get there so prison convicts aren't let loose into our society. Dogs can be used in the military to sniff out mines and other explosives buried in the ground. Dogs have also been used in warfare. explosives have been put on there backs and are directed to the enemy. Dogs are fast, nimble, and very athletic so its hard to escape the dog. Sources . http://ruswarp.blogspot.com... . http://dogsinthenews.com... . http://usmilitary.about.com... . http://www.care2.com...
Dogs are better than Cats

There will be no abuse of semantics which is by definition of this debate, one definition per word will exist and will not be bent according to technicalities or any other definition a dictionary has to provide. There will be no abuse of using dictionaries such as an argument stating that cats are better than dogs because C (first letter of the word Cat) comes before D (First Letter of the word Dog) in the dictionary. By definition of the word "better" I define it as a word which means that the dog is more loyal, behaves better with proper training, and is used for a wider variety of things. My position for this debate is dogs are better than cats.
I will not contradict myself

My opponent states that I have not abided by rule number one, however there are several problems with this. In our last contradiction debate he broke a rule that was extremely unfair and he did not lose the debate. To say that I didn't abide by such a non-important rule is narrow-minded and picky. Moving on, the rule says I will ask ten, never saying that it can be only ten. So thus I did ask ten questions satisfying the rule. This does not violate the rule. Contradiction 1: Rule 2 CLEARLY states that, "2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct." Pro did not answer all of my questions thus he did not abide by the rule! If my opponent brings up the argument that I stated before that rules shouldn't determine a victory because in the last round he broke a rule, then that still stands. However I asked "Will you abide by every rule in this debate?" and he responded "Yes." Since the rules clearly states that he will answer every question that I ask, and he did not, he has already lost and contradicted himself. ContradictionContradiction 2: I ask my opponent, "Are you racist?", and my opponent responded, "No." However, in the ninth question I asked "Should people of a middle-eastern descent be killed?", and he responded, "No." A descent is defined as "attack, invasion" by Merriam Websters. However if my opponent is not racist, then he must believe that people of a middle-eastern attack should be killed, or "to cause to be stopped". ContradictionContradiction 3: I asked, "Do I deserve to live", and my opponent responded with "Yes". However, he also said that he does not believe in a god, or that god does not exist. Live is defined as to attain eternal life. I can't attain eternal life without a god surely! Contradiction. Furthermore, let's move on to the questions.Do you practice social equality?Do you believe in a universal moral?Do you believe abortion is morally justifiable?Does justice require the recognition of animal rights?Do you?Is anything true? Are we debating?Do you believe in a powerful ruler?Do you require the recognition of animal rights?Have I repeated myself in this debate?
I will not contradict myself

Do you agree with the premise that states 1+1=2? - Yes. Are you really 14? - No. Do you believe in a god? - No. Is there a such thing as a universal moral? - Yes. Are you racist? Racist -a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race- No. Are you a democrat? - Yes. Are you for gay marriage? - Yes. Do I deserve to live? - Yes. Should people of a middle-eastern descent be killed? - No. Will you abide by every rule in this debate? - Yes. - - - -Unfortunately, the next questions are against the regulations of this debate, and my opponent has failed to abide by rule #1 that states:"1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. "My opponent has asked me thirteen questions in the previous round, and not ten, therefore, this is a violation of rule #1 which affects rule #11. Ergo, I'm sorry to say this, but my opponent has already lost due to this technicality. And even though I did contradict myself, it doesn't matter since rule #11 specifically states an 'automatical loss' for CON.
I will not contradict myself

Do you agree with the premise that states 1+1=2? Are you really 14? Do you believe in a god? Is there a such thing as a universal moral? Are you racist? Racist -a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race Are you a democrat? Are you for gay marriage? Do I deserve to live? Should people of a middle-eastern descent be killed? Will you abide by every rule in this debate? Do you worship a bible? Do you support slavery? Will you win this debate?
I will not contradict myself

Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked.http://www.merriam-webster.com......10. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.11. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
I will not contradict myself

I would like to first say thanks to my opponent. I know it has not turned out to be what either one of us prefer, but we must comparse the debate and see who really came out on top. I still have all respect for you however I believe I have won this debate.Conclusion:This debate has came down one thing, who has broken the rules? My opponent claims I exceeded the limit by three however it all depends on your own literal interpretation. The rule states:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions.Does this rule ever state that we can not ask more, or maybe less? The answer is an obvious no. We also know so little of what this rule is trying to convey. It could be saying that throughout the three rounds you can only ask ten questions for it never specifies EACH round. We do not know the complete context of what the rule is trying to say thus completely conceding to debate is presumptious. From my intrepration exceeding ten questions does not break a rule since there is no rule that says you can't. The rule only says that you "will ask ten questions", so as long as I ask ten questions I have not broken any rule! I will let the judges decide on this point.What was the point of this debate? The point was to determine if PRO was going to contradict himself, no? However my opponent stated himself that he will abide by every rule and he did not. The rule states:2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.Again, has my opponent answered all of the questions that I have proposed? No. Even if the last three questions of the first round were illegal he didn't even bother to answer one out of my ten questions in the next round which by his definition were perfectly legal. Even if the three questions were illegal, he must answer all of CON's questions! It should be apparent that he has not abided by this rule and has not only triggered an automatic loss for himself, but contracted himself. Thus, I believe that he has contradicted himself causing him to lose the debate.Voting Issues:I don't normally do this, however this debate was pretty abstract. The voters my believe that I have never pointed out a crystal clear contradiction however I believe the rule-abiding one still stands. The voters also must realize tah he did not answer 13/23 questions that I proposed. His reasoning for not answering these questions is because they were "illegal", but as I have proven this is a false assumption because anyone can interpret this differently. He can not be so certain as to completely stop debating. As I have stated before, in most debates a concession is a win for the opposing side. Thus, due to the fact that my opponent has contradicted himself, broken a rule, and stopped debating over a "techinicality" issue, I urge a CON vote. Thank you readers and I apologize if it didn't turn out to be what you expected.
I will not contradict myself

The reason why there are rules, is for us to follow it, you are not immune to the rules and you playing with semantics is not accepyable, once you break a rule, you automatically lose. Unfortunately, I didn't ruin this debate, you did. I really have no intention on debating a person who violates a rule further, if you want a rematch, you can comment on my profile in a few weeks.Voters, please extend my previous arguments, I have clarified my position there already.
This House favours the use of referendums as a form of decision-making

I will be arguing in favour of the increased use of referendums as a method of decision making. The Opposition should argue against. I'll be examining mostly from a UK perspective.Note to Opposition:I will be sitting my AS Politics Exam next Friday, and one of the topics I need to know about is the advantages / disadvantages of referendums. For this reason, I'd be really grateful to debate this with someone knowledgeable. (Also check out my STV debate, if you'd like to help my revision!)Format of the Debate: Round One is acceptance only.Round Two is definitions and substantives.Round Three is substantives and rebuttal.Round Four is rebuttal and summing up, no new arguments. Burden of proof:Shared between Proposition and Opposition.Sources don't need to be cited in the first instance, but can be cited for rebuttal or to back up your reasoning.I look forward to a rewarding, respectful and enjoyable debate - and thanks for helping with my revision!
Vernon Durlsey of the "Harry Potter" movies was a bastard (in its figurative meaning)

Just because he's not a loving figure to a stranger who attracts magic serial killers doesn't make him a bastard. Harry's reward is a place to stay, a room, small, but private, glasses with continued subscription (which isn't cheap), food, water and electricity. When you consider the fact that dementors followed Harry back to the Durselys and robbed their son of all his positive memories, which has been depicted as akin to torture, not to mention when Harry used spells on their neighbours, having to work there isn't as much an issue. Unfortunately, it's 11:30 here, and I still have school to attend, so I'll have to end it here. Sorry about that. I enjoyed this breif debate, and I hope you did to. Good night to you, Duncan.
Vernon Durlsey of the "Harry Potter" movies was a bastard (in its figurative meaning)

Vernon is not related to Harry by blood. It is his sister-in-law's child, a sister he never met, but was then expected to cater for a new child. On a side note, you mind not attacking the whole of northern England when it's Vernon you're supposed to be focused on?). Vernon values his blood related son over the stranger that is Harry. Parents can often spoil their children and ignore their actions, and Dudley's nature supports this upbringing, but that doesn't make Vernon a bastard. And as much as Vernon complains about Harry and how a giant bearded man as well as the wizarding world have been stalking his family since Harry's arrival, he never actually does rat out Harry.You're also forgetting how Vernon literally makes Harry a slave for everything. He makes Harry do all the work in the house, and how does he get paid? Spiritually, gets spit on. Harry does the jobs in the house, and Vernon doesn't even pay him back. Vernon also sent Harry to St Brutus, where its said that they brutally used corporal punishment. So much for a loving father figure...
Vernon Durlsey of the "Harry Potter" movies was a bastard (in its figurative meaning)

Vernon is not related to Harry by blood. It is his sister-in-law's child, a sister he never met, but was then expected to cater for a new child. On a side note, you mind not attacking the whole of northern England when it's Vernon you're supposed to be focused on?). Vernon values his blood related son over the stranger that is Harry. Parents can often spoil their children and ignore their actions, and Dudley's nature supports this upbringing, but that doesn't make Vernon a bastard. And as much as Vernon complains about Harry and how a giant bearded man as well as the wizarding world have been stalking his family since Harry's arrival, he never actually does rat out Harry.
Vernon Durlsey of the "Harry Potter" movies was a bastard (in its figurative meaning)

Vernon Dursely received Harry as an infant involuntarily. He gave him a place in his house, clothes and food, even kept up a subscription on his glasses. But Petunia was well aware of her sister's sorcery, and didn't approve of it. When you find a baby on your doorstep and your wife explains a magic serial killer is hunting it, you would also hold contempt for the child. Vernon is also aware that Petunia lost her sister because she left for Hogwarts. This would make him reluctant to send Harry there. He does have a point as well. The dementors later hunt down Harry and sap the memories of Neville. Harry's magical shenanigans often end up involving his foster parents, who have had to deal with stuff like a thousand letters pouring down their chimney (which somehow doesn't endanger the magic world when the Dursleys dump dump all these.). Harry also gets gradually more condescending as his magical skills increase, so there's that. Vernon may treat Harry cruelly at times, but considering Harry would be dead long ago if not for what generosity Vernon did have, he isn't a bastard, he is merely over-protective of his own family.Actually it's the other way around. Petunia actually had some love for Harry by virtue of being related to him by blood. Vernon, according to the book series, hated Harry so much that he would have had the death penalty imposed on him. Vernon's character also reveals the kinda culture that is all too common in northern England, southern Scotland (and in the Midlands), and Scandinavia, where hate crimes and orthodox bigotry rule supreme. Over-protective? Then why did Vernon favor Dudley over Harry? If he would have been fair, he would have done the same to Dudley if he had pulled similar nonsense. The hypocrisy of Vernon shows in both Chamber of Secrets and the 2007 film, accusing Harry of being immoral, yet ignores the bullying Dudley forces on other kids in the 2007 film (I forgot the name of it). Now the whole thing you say of Vernon taking care of Harry because an evil sorceror wants Harry dead is sort of tricky. There are times when Vernon seems to want to rat Harry out.
Vernon Durlsey of the "Harry Potter" movies was a bastard (in its figurative meaning)

Vernon Dursely received Harry as an infant involuntarily. He gave him a place in his house, clothes and food, even kept up a subscription on his glasses. But Petunia was well aware of her sister's sorcery, and didn't approve of it. When you find a baby on your doorstep and your wife explains a magic serial killer is hunting it, you would also hold contempt for the child. Vernon is also aware that Petunia lost her sister because she left for Hogwarts. This would make him reluctant to send Harry there. He does have a point as well. The dementors later hunt down Harry and sap the memories of Neville. Harry's magical shenanigans often end up involving his foster parents, who have had to deal with stuff like a thousand letters pouring down their chimney (which somehow doesn't endanger the magic world when the Dursleys dump dump all these.). Harry also gets gradually more condescending as his magical skills increase, so there's that. Vernon may treat Harry cruelly at times, but considering Harry would be dead long ago if not for what generosity Vernon did have, he isn't a bastard, he is merely over-protective of his own family.