BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

1. Revenge. As shown by the website http://www.livescience.com...; "Cats are, first and foremost, natural-born hunters, as recent studies of the effects that feral and indoor-outdoor cats have on bird and rodent populations have shown. Cats allegedly kill billions of small animals every year in the United States alone." And while the cat seems to "act as if you are its surragate mother", we personally do not do these things and plus the dead animals make our places quite dirty with germs all over the place. The fire is a sure way to get rid of all of that germ, and combined with water afterwards, we're sure to make our houses clean. On the other hand, dogs don't make our houses super dirty by bringing in dead animals, so that's a point for the dog.2. Punishment.Cats are not loyal to us as dogs. Why is this so? A study reveals that dogs hunt in packs, as with the first men, thus, they are used to go with men. On the contrary, cats are from a "solitary, territorial animal" and get distracted really easily. In contrast, dogs really need the social interaction and thus depends on their owners more. Thus, we can clearly see that cats deserve to be lighted up and burnt better than dogs.3. For science! (and for interest!) As you can see from this gif very interesting things happen with cats and buttered toast, causing an infinite loop. As this creates a mighty generation of energy, burning it not only gives us an interesting method to create energy, andcontributes to the understanding of the conversion of energy within science, it also gives us nice burnt toast to eat upon. By the contrary, dogs do not have such an interesting ability, making the burning fire on the fire while taping a toast on top pretty darn boring and non-scientific.As can be seen here, if an animal should be lighted on fire, we should light cats on fire. Dogs don't deserve such a harsh punishment compared to cats, and burning cat-toast is much more interesting than burning dogs.
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

My opponent tries to prove them EQUALLY okay to being burnt. However, my opponent still loses in that case...I'll admit that the case between introverts and extroverts is difficult to balance, especially with people's different views, however, my opponent's own words defeat his case. He notes that "introverts will often have a 'warming up' phase, while extroverts are less inclined to exhibit this attitude". As you can see here, even while analyzing loyalty he accidentally reveals that cats warm up more easily than extroverts, supporting that burning a cat is preferable to a dog--the latter wouldn't even produce even any heat! My opponent leads to the mettling of natural systems, and tries pointing out the "positive advantages" while refuting my lab-mice argument. While my opponent may be correct, he has completely ignored my argument about the cat's capture dirtifying the home, and needing the fire and water to clean while the dog's cleansing wouldn't necessarily have the same effects.My opponent points out that the third argument is a troll argument and does not work, however my admission only proves that my argument CAN apply because troll arguments ought to be taken seriously in a troll debate due to its humor, compared to a normal debate in which troll arguments may or may not work out. My opponent tries to say that the cat's energy produced is very less, however, as I have already stated, the experiment is VERY interesting, which my opponent has failed to refute. If burning cat is more interesting, it is surely better than the mundane-in-comparison burning dog.As for the final argument, my opponent speaks of the environmental harms from cat-burning. However, I have to counter this since the area research would be specialized--where do you think they test out fire-proof suits or flamethrowers? In addition, the fire is also good for firemen to practice upon and a great drill. Not only do they get to "warm up" cats, cleanse the house, and do something interesting.
Dogs cannot be Anarcho-Socialists

I think it's safe to say at this point that dogs must be sent to an anarcho-socialist re-education camp (REC) before being allowed into the greater anarcho-socialist-society. I propose the following measures: If the dog is male, it must be castrated. A prosthetic can be put in to maintain balance and aesthetic integrity, but unless a dog is castrated it will continue to use coercion, violence and patriarchy to attain food, clothing and shelter. The dog must be then placed in a leotard, and not allowed out of it except for bathing. Leotards, as a general rule, are able calm and pacify a dog to the extent that it will cease working against the greater good of society. I know when I wear a leotard, the last thing on my mind is upsetting societal equilibrium. These can be purchased quite cost effectively here: http://www.zazzle.com... The dog must not be allowed near knives, axes, pencils or any other object which it can grasp and stab into the heart of an anarcho-socialist comrade. Ideally, all such items will be hung from the ceiling on strings, where the dog cannot reach them. These are just some basic measures. The Anarchist Comittee Toward Excellence, Virtue, Integrity & Life (A.C.T.E.V.I.L.) will develop further counter-measures. In regards to beer attacks, I remember reading in a reader's digest that most beers are attracted to the area by AM radio. These will also be banned by the Great Anarchist Society. I will mail you my dog and my cow in 48 hours. The package will come UPS. I have cut air holes in both of their respective boxes and provided them with bottled water, kit-kat bars and an mp3 player each loaded with the lectures of Howard Zinn. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Dogs cannot be Anarcho-Socialists

The Con has now given us a profound argument: Dogs cannot be anarcho-socialites, because people can't be. Is this true? Before democracy was attempted, there were men like the Con who said, "Democracy cannot work. We need kings and emperors." Well my friend, we overthrew the kings and emperors and made democracies. Now we have those who say, "Anarcho-socialism is impossible. We need some sort of centralized government to organize things." I argue that anarcho-socialism will work because it was what we had for 100,000 years of hominid history. There were no kings, no lords, no bosses. Everyone was free to be who they were: to compose music out of beating on turtle shells, to write poetry with inarticulate grunts and howls, and to paint wonderful pictures with the blood of mammoths mixed with the blood of sparrows on cave walls. Then, some jerk got it in his head to be the king, to be the boss, and he convinced a bunch of other jerks that he was, and so began civilization. Likely the inspiration for the first king or boss was a dog. A man saw how dogs grovel before people, shamelessly and ignorantly, and so he thought, "I want people to grovel before me, like a dang dirty dog!" Dogs are at the root of civilizational depravity. They are mangey, ferocious and smell beasts. They drool and slobber all over your DVDs, then they chew up your comic book collection, bite through the cords of your Nintendo WII-U, and go potty on your treadmill. Seriously, Con, are you going to sit here and defend that behavior? How can you? How can you sit idly by while dogs do this day after day, holding all of back by threat of their iron paws? I hold it in until I get back to town, or a gas station at least, by the way. I don't like using the restroom outside where a bear can attack and kill me.
Dogs cannot be Anarcho-Socialists

Humans cannot even be good Anarcho-Socialists, so why burden the race of dogs with guilt for not having that ability either? Humans are 2 legged dogs, crossed with 2 legged cows, over a population of billions. A resolution to this conundrum will be very difficult to prove. Good luck! By the way, I will wipe my dirty hole after a number 2 in the woods quite happily with a clean leaf, and you?
Dogs cannot be Anarcho-Socialists

May the best anarchist win! Refutation: 1. I was using the example of food-thievery to illustrate the dogs' innate usage of force and violence to achieve what it wants. I do believe dogs should be fed, but I do not think it justifies violence on part of the dog to achieve its desires. Rather, a dog should make known its desire for food through open communication: whining, pawing at the air, sad looks, etc. I do not think the Con has properly refuted the principle of coercion here. To say "you would steal food" and "my dog never steals food" area appeals to an assumed general consensus, as well as to one, isolated example. I submit to you that the vast majority of dogs would indeed steal food if given the chance. The Con's dog may be an exception to the rule. 2. Again, the Con's dog may be an especially well-behaved dog. And, yes, using the restroom outside is sometimes fun (though only number 1, never number 2). Nonetheless, I can also speak from personal experience that I have had dogs who routinely used the restroom in the house. Con's exceptional dog does not absolve the majority of dogs of their violent tendencies. 3. The Con says that if I was thirsty enough, I would both a) drink from the toilet and b) spread amoebas onto the face of whoever allowed me toilet access. Even if this were true, it would still not absolve dogs from their essential violent natures. Dogs cannot be anarcho-socialists until they set aside from the principle of coercion. My own personal failings do not absolve dogs from theirs. Again, the Con fails to argue effectively that dogs can be anarcho-socialists. 4. Some dogs are purchased with short hair, but then, later, the hair grows out long, unbeknownst to their owner. But, again, the Con fails to show why this is relevant to the dogs' inability to integrate into an anarcho-socialist state. 5. The Con's dog sounds like a good anarcho-socialist, actually, and I would be happy to have both the Con and his dog join the Great Anarcho-Socialist-society. Having said that, he has only shown that his own, particular dog can be an anarcho-socialist, and not that dogs, by and large, can be. I have given reasons from the nature of most dogs, but the Con refutes by an appeal to one dog. The particular does not dislodge the universal. . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... 6. Noted. In summation, the Con is arguing that because some humans would not make good anarcho-socialists, or because his dog would, that, therefore, the majority of dogs would make good anarcho-socialists. This is not sufficient reasons, I believe. Perhaps a more in depth analysis will arrive with the upcoming rounds. Thank you.
Dogs cannot be Anarcho-Socialists

Thanks for the debate opportunity, if you have a dog, then I pity you both. I will respond to your points in order. 1.Why would any humane person not feed their dog? If you were starving you would steal food too. My dog never steals food, and he does no have access to food every minute of every day either, and is not fat. 2. I prefer to use the restroom outside, except when it is below zero, then I thank the inventor of the indoor toilet, of which my dog would also if there was an indoor toilet he could use, as he is short haired and gets cold, just like we do. As far as defecating anywhere in the house, he only would if he was neglected for 24 or more hours at least, which he has never been. 3. You don't expect water? If you were thirsty enough, you would be glad to have a toilet bowl to drink from certainly, and then you would lick the face of the provider of such luxury gladly, if you were thirsty enough. 4. What kind of irresponsible fool gets a long haired dog if they do not expect to deal with either stink and shedding or regular grooming? please. 5. A sedentary individual that does not wish to walk with their dog, should have never gotten one. I walk my dog 2-3 times per week, plus a couple a car rides, and he has never chewed anything but an old oven mitt that I got lasagna on the thumb of and dropped next to his bed, near the laundry pile. He just about crapped himself out of guilt when I picked it up and said, what is this? I have never beat him, ever. 6. I wish my Pitt Bull Retriever would kill the squirrels but he stops chasing when they leave the lawn. Someday he will get one I hope, as they eat the bird food and that is expensive bird turd fuel! LOL! Anarchism will never exist because humans are like dogs and herd animals. We will always find a leader, or kill each other trying.
Abortion is murder

Here are my opening arguments. I would like to point out that none of my opponents arguments were relevant to the resolution, they never argued that abortion should be considered as murder, they simply argued that it should be punished. The resolution stands that abortion is murder, Definitions from oxford dictionaries. Murderthe unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another: Unlawfulnot conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules:Premediatethink out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand: Now I will get into my opening arguments that will be based on these definitions.Contention 1 - UnlawfulUnlawful is defined as not permitted by the law, abortion is permitted by the law, therefore it is not murder, because the definition of murder states that murder is unlawful.Contention 2 - Killing of one human being by anotherIt's pretty simple here, a fetus is not a fully developed human being. The definition of a fetus states that it is - an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conception. - The key words here are unborn, and more than eight weeks after conception. This means that an unborn child can't even be considered a fetus, much less a human being, until the pregnancy reaches eight weeks, up until then it is an embryo. These are 2 pretty simple but clear arguments as to why abortion does not constitute murder. It is not unlawful, which is what murder is according to the definition, and it is not the killing of one human being by another, because a fetus/embryo is not a human being. I now pass the ball back to my opponent.
Abortion is murder

am against abortion, it is an unhealthy choice. It damages women's bodies and later on in life if they decide that they do happen to want children, there is a major possibility that they can not have a child, because of the previous damage caused from the abortion. There are many great families around the world that are willing to adopt. Murder is a crime, so shouldn't abortion also be a crime, because in both cases a life is being taken away from another person. If a murder gets the death penalty or life in prison for killing someone, why is abortion any different because of the victim's age . Many people always bring up the depressing stages they will go through, and honestly they are right to a certain extent. Although it is a fact that if the adoption parents are honest from day one about their adoption the child won't have as big of a problem with it because they won't feel lied to their entire lives. People also say that they will take their lives after being depressed for a certain amount time, well in that case that is a life lost anyways. so why not let them live a happy life and if they begin to fall into depression, then someone can get them as much help as possible, before it becomes a serious matter. There have been times that the fathers of the babies want their partners to have the babies because they will take full custody of them, but the female has an abortion anyways because it is her body, but you have to realize that it took two people to create this child. A majority of women regret it later. So, why take a life that doesn't belong to you?
Abortion is murder

Ok well, my opponent has dropped all of their arguments from Round 2, and have only tried to refute my own arguments. I would like to remind voters that the BOP was on Pro, and by dropping their own arguments they pretty much dropped the debate. DRC1 - My opponent states that "you can't really say it's not murder because it's against the law," this doesn't make sense, if it's against the law then it is murder, no one's arguing against that. I will assume that my opponent meant it's not murder because it isn't against the law. Actually you can say that it isn't murder, because this doesn't fit in with the definition of murder, which states that it is an unlawful killing. DRC2 - Ok, so my opponent basically drops this argument. Instead of trying to prove that a fetus is a human, they simply state that I have to prove that a fetus isn't a human. I already did that, a fetus is still growing, it's not a fully developed fetus. My opponent hasn't stated anything to refute that, or shown that fetus's are considered humans under the law. So to conclude, Pro dropped all of their own arguments, and my second one. I have shown how abortion is not murder by using it's definition and pointing out the difference.
The Earth is spherical

For simplicity's sake I said spherical. There's no point accepting a debate just to be overly pedantic because it just wastes everyone's time. I know that there is a slight bulge in the earth. Some of this is my fault for not specifying what I meant by 'spherical' but there's no point in being so pedantic. Next time I will specify what I mean by 'spherical' but I was hoping for a flat earther.
The Earth is spherical

I do not believe the earth is flat nor is it spherical and here me out. Spherical by definition is a third-dimensional object with a round structure and complexion. Although I can see where you think the shape of the earth is spherical it isn't. The earth is an oblate ellipsoid. The Sphere and Ellipsoid have a similar structure, the only true difference is the sphere is perfect where the ellipsoid is flat on its poles and bulging at the equator (prolate) or flat at the equator and bulging at the poles (oblate). Take a look at a picture of the earth and focus on the poles and equators.
The Earth is spherical

(I will be assuming you believe the Earth is flat, and as you have not clarified whether you believe it is flat or not, only that you do not believe it is spherical. Of course, if I am mistaken I shall adjust my arguments accordingly, but since you chose not to clarify I must assume.) The Earth is spherical, as given all of the evidence and primary observations that one may conduct for himself shows. First, some practical observations. When a ship is travelling across the ocean, one finds that as the ship reaches a certain point of distance, it slowly vanishes below the horizon. This is explained by the curvature of the Earth, as otherwise (if the Earth was flat) the ship would not disappear, only get smaller. As well as this do-it-yourself example, one can find a plethora of photographs observing the Earth from space. In these photographs, the Earth is obviously spherical. If the Earth is flat, then wouldn't people fall off it? And why would governments lie about the shape of the Earth, if it wasn't spherical? It makes no sense to deliberately mislead the population as to the shape of the Earth.
Facism can be more effective than Democracy

Well im a mix if you look at my profile at my political compass you can see I am liberal but a bit more on the authoritarian side of things. Anyway onto the debate. This, again, isn't a debate about whether Fascism is right or not. Its about its effectiveness. Fascism can be found throughout history. Its most notable presence in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Fascism in many cases can be more effective than democracies in numerous reasons: Time: In democracies there are so many intracies that you need to go through to get a bill passed. Lets for example talk about a military budget. If a military budget isn't decided by the democratic government then troops overseas wont get paid until the budget is passed. Most times bills that could benefit us just don't get debated because committees think they aren't worth debating. No useless things: In our current style of government many bills will only be passed if added benefits can be added onto that bill. On the presidential level many bills contain pork barrel projects or added things. Lets just say that a bill goes to give body armor to troops. Well Louisiana passes the bill but adds in some extra funding for their schools and maybe New Hampshire gets funding for drug studies. When the bill reaches the president he cant just veto a line out he either signs it or he doesn't. It is economically effective as well: If you remember Nazi Germany and Italy had great economies. Unemployment was cut down to almost zero and the money in the countries were doing great. The only thing that led to the downfall of these nations were the combined forces of the Allied Nations and that brings me to my next section. Facism is a Survival of the Fittest: The weak governments that cant war and fight are wiped out leaving only the strongest nations together. To you Con
ALL drugs should be legalized and addiction should be treated as a health problem instead of a crime

A drug addict is not nessecarily a criminal. As we send the drug addicts to prison and radicalize them into criminals, we create a society where we look at people with addictions as the scum of the society. In Portugal drugs for personal use have been legal since 2001. What they did was, that instead of treating the drug addicts as criminals and sentencing them to prison, they treated drug addiction as a health disorder. They have had a massive success with the project and made a higher amount of people drug-free annually. The legalization of drugs would also imply (if the sale was made state controlled) that the drug cartels would lose power. If we legalize drugs for personal use, and make the sale state controlled, the prices for state controlled would be a lot lower than the price drug cartels could offer, as a large amount of the money you pay when you buy drugs, are actually for the smuggling part. Just to get this clear before starting the debate; I am not a drug addict and have never touched drugs in my life.
ALL drugs should be legalized and addiction should be treated as a health problem instead of a crime

Before I start my closing argument, I would like to point out a credibility issue with my opponents argument. Three out of four of his sources come from Wikipedia, an easy source for flawed and biased information. In future debates, it would do my opponent well to find credible sources. First I would like to point out that all of my opponents stories from Portugal and the Netherlands are not examples of solving the drug problem, but are examples of dangerous drugs becoming acceptable in society. It is true, general use of recreational drugs in Portugal went down since legalization. What my opponent fails to mention, is that use among adolescents and minors went up since legalization. [1] Which means that once the current generation is passed and the new generation, raised on legal drugs, takes its place, you will see skyrocketing drug rates. My opponent cites that the only problem with the Netherlands is that users come from other countries to smoke marijuana legally.[2] This isn't a side problem, this is a major issue. If the US were to legalize drugs, you would have users immigrating (probably illegally) to America just to supply the market for drugs. When I comes down to it, legalizing drugs is just another way of saying, "Drugs aren't that bad". We need to protect our children and their children from this mentality. Rather than making the US a safe haven for drug abusers, lets make the US a safe haven for those who wish to live drug free. Condemn the use of drugs, show their negative effects on the user, those around him, and on society as a whole. I also thank my opponent for starting this debate and giving me the chance to give my two cents. I look forward to any future debates. Sources: [1] http://www.drugwarfacts.org... [2] http://jech.bmj.com...