BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Celebrating at Osama Bin Ladens death is wrong.

"you compared killing Osama Bin Laden to killing Hitler. Well, Osama Bin Laden is one of many individuals who could take his place." There were also individuals that would have replaced Hitler had he been killed before the end of the war. The only reason Hitler wasn't replaced was because the Red Army was in control of the capital and everyone (nearly) viewed the war as lost much sooner than Hitler. Simply because a replacement is available does not mean that there is no value in killing a threat. "It's funny how everyone says, 'killing Osama Bin Laden will end terrorist attacks,' and then immediately after, 'be prepared for a terrorist attack in response.'" Neither of those are arguments that I made, so they don't really apply to this debate. "You know as well as I do that if he was put on trial he would not be able to do any more harm than he can now, but instead of capturing him, NATO, with their gun - ho attitude shot him dead." I would disagree. There would be a chance of his supporters making attempts to resue him, and even if they failed at that goal, if they killed a single person in their attempts, then it would be a negative. "...maybe prove that we are the west are not all savages as I'm sure he thought." Killing him doesn't show that we are savages. He committed a crime, and he paid for it. If he has a view that defines that as "savage" then I want us to be "savage." "When you laugh at a human death what does that make you?" It makes you human, as do all our emotions. A non-human responce would be an emotionless response. My opponent has tried to affirm the resolution, but has not been able to defend it adequately. The comparison to Hitler's death (and celebration of) was never refuted, merely tried to imply that they were not comparible. I'll pass this to the voters. Thank you,
Celebrating at Osama Bin Ladens death is wrong.

OK, thank you for your arguments but I have to disagree with you. For a start a will address your first two points: you compared killing Osama Bin Laden to killing Hitler. Well, Osama Bin Laden is one of many individuals who could take his place. In fact, I think someone has. He was vain and demanded credit for his works which made him a target but killing him wont make a difference. It's funny how everyone says, 'killing Osama Bin Laden will end terrorist attacks,' and then immediately after, 'be prepared for a terrorist attack in response.' You know as well as I do that if he was put on trial he would not be able to do any more harm than he can now, but instead of capturing him, NATO, with their gun - ho attitude shot him dead. If he could have been prosecuted it would give the victims a chance to see him fairly brought to justice but what has been done I think has proven nothing. To answer your third point, I find it all terribly sick that when I fellow human being is killed (no matter how bad) we should celebrate his death. I ask you this: Osama Bin Laden wished for many people death and showed no sympathy on his victims. He was happy at the thought of people suffering because of what he did. Unlike him we should show that we are above such acts and should not laugh and party as if it is a time for celebration. I am not saying mourn his death but I am saying mourn his victims deaths and maybe prove that we are the west are not all savages as I'm sure he thought. When you laugh at a human death what does that make you?
Celebrating at Osama Bin Ladens death is wrong.

I understand the resolution about celebrating being the topic, however the root emotion to celebration is happiness (or being glad). Celebration is simply a way of expressing happiness (usually a large amount of happiness). I will address my opponent's arguments each individually. "1.I think that by celebrating the death of a person whose done something wrong, unless it ends a massive war your involved in and your celebrating that like WW2 because you used the example of Hitler it lowers you from the moral high ground. e.g. Osama Bin Laden." The death of Hitler didn't actually end the war, though it was a key step towards ending the war. The same is true in our current case. We like to call it a "war on terror" or whatever other fancy name we can give it in order to make it seem more justified, but it is a war mainly against Al Qaeda (as well as any other groups that step to the plate). In order to defeat Al Qaeda, Bin Ladin needed to have been killed or captured (and neutralized in some manner). Killing him doesn't end it in itself, but it is a major step that is needed. "2. It created more tension and a higher risk of terrorist attacks from the death and the celebrations which followed." I would disagree. Saying that it puts a higher risk of terrorist attacks is like saying that if the Red Army killed Hitler, that would increase the risk of German soldiers (or the hitler youth) attacking the Red Army. The German soldiers were already engaging with the Red Army. And Al Qaeda is already trying to find ways of attacking the US, that much is clear from the data that we pulled from hard drives in the raid (from assassinating the president, to terrorist attacks in the elections). "3. I find it hard to be happy about it when I think he should have been put on trial and justice should of been done." As seeing as he has already admitted it, taken credit for it, and we've captured others that have confirmed that Al Qaeda (lead by Bin Ladin) was the financer of the attacks, a trial is not really needed. We already know that he did it, he doesn't deny it, all that is left is to deliver the punishment for the crime.
Celebrating at Osama Bin Ladens death is wrong.

I hope I didn't make a mistake with the title. I will tell you what I meant but just for the record, if you thought I meant just being glad I will concede. What I meant was, in America I have heard people had parties to celebrate his death and it even spread a bit into the UK. They made it into some special event like D - day where they were all celebrating and having a good time over his death. If you understood what I meant or wish to argue that that is right then I would love to continue this debate. Because I am not sure as I can see the title was a bit ambiguous I will continue now with my reasons but if you confirm that I was not clear enough in making this debate and you don't think that having parties over his death and celebrating like that is right say in round 2 and I will concede. Anyway...Here's my reasons in case you wish to argue this subject.1.I think that by celebrating the death of a person whose done something wrong, unless it ends a massive war your involved in and your celebrating that like WW2 because you used the example of Hitler it lowers you from the moral high ground. e.g. Osama Bin Laden.2. It created more tension and a higher risk of terrorist attacks from the death and the celebrations which followed.3. I find it hard to be happy about it when I think he should have been put on trial and justice should of been done.I will elaborate more if you are willing to argue against me in your turn. If so, please tell me why you think people should celebrate in the way I described.
Celebrating at Osama Bin Ladens death is wrong.

"My point is that no matter how bad a person is, to celebrate a persons death is lowering yourself to their level." I would have to strongly disagree with this. Do you feel that everyone that celebrated Hitler's death is on the same level as him? If that is the case, by celebrating Ghandi's death, does that raise me to the same level as him? Celebrating a death =/= killing (on a moral scale). Anyway, going to my argument. Different deaths mean different things to different people. The execution of someone that murdered my uncle (not a true story for me) can be closure for my lose, and so benefitial to me. The death of someone that commits global atrocities can be benefitial to the people of the world. Celebrating benefitial things is prefectly acceptable and should actually be encouraged. I'll leave it at this for now and let my opponent build their own argument.
uniforms in high schools

There is a study at the university of Oregon the 77% of high school students fail because of uniforms Please, Please send me a message with a link to this article. Send a message to my profile. Because, I really do not believe this is true. When I first read it I didn't think it was true. I decided to give you a chance and did a Google search. I searched all I could. It doesn't exist. Does it? If you send me the link. I will admit defeat. I know it's not true. Besides even if it was, it is wrong.
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Welcome everyone. I'd like to present a well informed opinion about this serious topic we have laid out on the table.I'm going to be supporting a syllogism in this debate that will help me uphold the resolution.P1) Child maltreatment causes violenceP2) Cadburry Creme Egg deprivation is a form of child maltreatmentC) Cadburry Creme Egg deprivation during childhood causes violence.Supporting P1I hereby provide a quote from a digest about a book or something:"The authors provide evidence that the apparent negative effects of maltreatment on children's propensity to engage in crime are real and not simply artifacts of other features of dysfunctional families. They find that being maltreated approximately doubles the probability of engaging in many types of crime and that the effects are worst for children from low socio-economic status backgrounds" [1].This is really all I need in order to prove that my premise 1 is true.Supporting P2Here is a heretic's review on Cadburry Creme Eggs. He is a heretic because he is not absolutely in love with these little heaven-filled eggs. Even still, I have provided what he has to say about them http://www.youtube.com... As you can see, Cadbury Creme Eggs are the best candy a child can have. I would also like to point out that child neglect is a form of child maltreatment [1]. Now, if a parent neglects to give their kid rich, beautiful chocolate filled with actual heaven, then they're committing child maltreatment.This is a year wide problem for some kids. Easter comes, and what happens? No creme eggs. It's clearly a widespread problem.Conclusion: I'm right.Now taking a look at the whole word "largest" that I now have to support, we just need to realize how widespread this problem is. Most people suffer from this. Since it's kind of a seasonal candy, a majority of America suffers from Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood because they only ate like ten per year. Can you imagine only breathing ten times a year? Yeah, didn't think so.What if parents forced their kids to only breath about ten times per year? Wouldn't that be child abuse? Yes, it sure would. So why are Cadbury Creme Eggs any different? They're not.I thank everyone for reading this, and I look forward to an exciting debate![3]Sources:[1] http://www.nber.org...[2] The video[3] I'm the prophet of Morgan Freeman.
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Although this topic may seem to be irrelevant and humorous upon first glance, it brings up a very serious question that has caused much controversy, especially in recent years due to the increase in seemingly random and misguided violent crimes at the individual and not the national level: what is the cause of all this violence? I look forward to a serious and informative debate.
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

I thank Aburk for agreeing to debate this with me. I have chosen him because he, so far, is the challenger with the highest number of debates won and the lowest number of debates lost. I do enjoy a good challenge. Anyway, ladies and gentlemen, this is a debate that is close to my heart. Cadbury Creme Eggs are the most beautiful little pieces of heaven that exist on earth. Or at least I think so. Format (me/my opponent): 1st round- Rules/acceptance 2nd round- Main arguments/arguments and rebuttals 3rd round- Rebuttals for both 4th round- Summary arguments for both
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Thank you for responding despite your present state. I hope you feel better soon. I'm now going to clear up a few points in this debate.Now, it has not been disputed that Cadbury Creme Eggs. As I've provided with evidence, Cadbury Creme Eggs certainly do bring joy to people and especially children. Why is this significant? Well, allow me to answer that. Happiness during childhood is necessary for the child to have a healthy future [1]. This can include things like preventing them from contracting heart disease at an early age.Therefore, it is very healthy to give children Cadbury Creme Eggs, and it is maltreatment to withhold them for an entire year.Thus, my second point is upheld.Regarding the question about why I specified America.America is just what I'm sticking to for the topic of debate. I could have said Great Britain. I heard people go canabilistic over Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation over there. However, I chose America just to specify the location we'd be talking about, since I don't know how popular Cadbury Creme Eggs are in the rest of the world.On ImpactThere is the reason that it is the largest cause. It is this: everyone goes through this form of maltreatment. It's a seasonal candy. So everyone suffers from this form of deprivation. So now I've proven that it's maltreatment not to give children Cadbury Creme Eggs year-round, and that everyone suffers it. I have upheld my burden.Sources:[1] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu...[2] Just me besides that.
Resolved: The largest cause of violence in America is Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation during childhood

Thank you for the interesting case. I underwent surgery on Friday evening and the medication they have given me is much stronger than I predicted. Nevertheless, I will attempt to construct a few intelligent points and ask that my opponent delay rebuttal until the end of the third day available. 1. Scale- America vs. The World I can easily concede my opponents first premise, that child maltreatment causes violence. However, I do offer one question that I ask my opponent to clarify in the next round: why are Cadbury Creme Eggs so closely correlated to violence in America and not in the rest of the world? 2. Child Maltreatment- Hedonistic Child Worship or Health? If Cadbury Creme Eggs benefited a child's life in some necessary way, it would be fair to argue that to deny them that privilege would be child maltreatment. However, as Cadbury Creme Eggs are unhealthy and do not benefit a child's diet, it is arguable that providing your child with unhealthy candies is more of a form of maltreatment than to never give them any at all. 3. Impact and Statistics- Are Cadbury Creme Eggs Really Causal to Violence? My opponent has finally and most importantly not provided any compelling statistical or logical evidence that Cadbury Creme Egg deprivation is in fact the leading cause of violence in the US. I ask that my opponent clarify some of these questions in the proceeding round, and that these Roxicets be allowed the proper time to wear off.
dogs are better companions than cats

Dogs are actually smart animals and can be trained to sit or to stay back when guests arrive. Dogs are much easier to teach commands too, and also have a large enough brain capacity to retain information like sit, or stay. Have you ever seen a cat follow basic commands like this? You say that to children dogs can also be dangerous. But believe it or not dogs are actually very beneficial to a child's social skills. Many studies have shown that children with dogs are much more social and more talkative and open to all kinds of situations. Dogs also have a super awareness around children and are completely okay around a baby and try to be as gentle as they can. to say that all dogs jump and are rough with children would be a completely false statement. Cats don't have a temperament that's easy going what so ever. Cats tend to be very nasty and are able to bite or scratch a child especially if the child wants to play. I think cats overall just tend to have nasty personalities
dogs are better companions than cats

Rebuttals"Your argument about Cats being able to clean themselves, while yes this is true cats lick and wash themselves. Cat's are also more likely to spit up hair balls all over the house. So it kind of defeats the purpose if you truly think about it."Cats do get hair balls sometimes, but very few. If your cat gets a lot of hair balls, it's probably sick. Dogs poop and drool all over the house way more than cats get hair balls."It has also been shown in many studies that dogs are aware of impending illnesses in human's, and can also help humans with a speedy recovery. Dogs are extremely lovable and offer companionship and company to those who suffer serious health problems. It has also been said that the dogs that make visits to nursing homes and hospitals cheer up the patients and help them alone to a speedy recovery."Yes, dogs can help with your health. But again, there are no records of cats killing people or severly injuring people. A dog can easily hurt children by jumping on them. Besides, according to a recent study by the University of Bristol, people with cats are more likely to have university degrees.My opponent has dropped most arguments. Extend rebuttals.Sourceshttp://www.onlineschools.org...
dogs are better companions than cats

Your argument about Cats being able to clean themselves, while yes this is true cats lick and wash themselves. Cat's are also more likely to spit up hair balls all over the house. So it kind of defeats the purpose if you truly think about it. There have been many studies shown that people who own dogs lead healthier and happier lifestyles. For example Dr Deborah Wells a psychologist from Queen's University, Belfast, said dog owners tend to have lower blood pressure and cholesterol. This is because dog's require a huge amount of exercise and it gives human's the chance to get out there and play with their animals, and in the end benefits both dog and master. source: http://gomestic.com...) It has also been shown in many studies that dogs are aware of impending illnesses in human's, and can also help humans with a speedy recovery. Dogs are extremely lovable and offer companionship and company to those who suffer serious health problems. It has also been said that the dogs that make visits to nursing homes and hospitals cheer up the patients and help them alone to a speedy recovery. Do we ever see cats do any of the above?
dogs are better companions than cats

I accept.Rebuttals"First of all whenever we think of dogs we automatically think of the phrase "man's best friend." Dogs have an insane sense of loyalty to their family and their owners, and make it their job to protect their owners. Their also very aware of their family and being around them. For example when a family goes out and the dog has been left alone do you ever notice when the family returns how excited the dog gets to see their family? A dog jumps up and down and wags their tail and cries. This kind of reaction is solely based on their unconditional love for their family. And shows how much the family means to them."Cats can be like that too. Cats do not have any innate behaviors that drive them to form relationships. If offered love, they will respond. If ignored, or worse, mistreated, they will avoid contact. Besides, a dog's over excited behavior may harm children."There have also been cases where dogs have helped people who drown, or even ward off an attacker to protect humans. Dog's make sure that no matter what the situation that it is a safe environment. I don't think cats have EVER had this sense of loyalty." Yes, a dog is a life saving animal, but it is also a killing animal. There has been no record of a cat killing a human, while there are plenty with dogs.Now my argumentsArgument 1-CareCats wash themselves and take care of themselves. They don't get all dirty like dogs. Argument 2-PolitenessCats are polite to guests. Dogs are typically excited and eager to greet guests. Unfortunately, this behavior is more often than not unappreciated by said guest. The larger, more popular dogs are capable of physically harming humans by jumping on them, especially small children. A cat is less social which is actually a good thing. A cat will not randomly jump on a guest with malicious intent or even good intent and be capable of severely harming said guest while a dog could.ConclusionAll my opponents points have been refuted. Dogs are not better than cats.Sources:http://www.wayofcats.com...;http://www.fataldogattacks.com...;
dogs are better companions than cats

We have heard the argument before, and have heard every opinion on the subject. Which is the better pet a dog or a cat? The argument has been around for centuries, and has even brought about some excellent points. I am here to say that dogs are indeed better than cats. First of all whenever we think of dogs we automatically think of the phrase "man's best friend." Dogs have an insane sense of loyalty to their family and their owners, and make it their job to protect their owners. Their also very aware of their family and being around them. For example when a family goes out and the dog has been left alone do you ever notice when the family returns how excited the dog gets to see their family? A dog jumps up and down and wags their tail and cries. This kind of reaction is solely based on their unconditional love for their family. And shows how much the family means to them. There have also been cases where dogs have helped people who drown, or even ward off an attacker to protect humans. Dog's make sure that no matter what the situation that it is a safe environment. I don't think cats have EVER had this sense of loyalty. Cats are much more independent and tend to be selfish. It's also been sad that cat's don't have as pleasant of a demeanor as dogs. Cats don't get as excited to see their families, and are not effected when they leave and return. They just seem more concerned with being left alone, and doing whatever it is they think is enjoyable.
dogs are better companions than cats

i did talk about the health benefits that come to owning a dog, as well as the emotional and social aspects. You can see the many benefits that dog owners have, and why dogs are much more suited for humans. As i said before dogs are known as man's best friend, and dogs are trained by their owners to be friendly. If a dog suffers abuse from their owners it alters their temperament. But to say that more attacks come from dogs is ridiculous. Yes while it is more common it is also extremely rude to group all dogs into this category. Dogs will only attack if they feel threatened or if it is to protect their family. i have made many valid points and defended my argument about why dogs are better than cats
dogs are better companions than cats

"Now while you make those kind of points your missing the main point which is that dogs are capable of unconditional love. Dogs make it their job to be aware of everything that happens in your home. Dogs make it their number one priority to protect and make sure that their family is okay and safe. When have we ever seen a cat do any of those things? Dogs main goal is to make sure that any unwanted events will not harm their owner. Dogs always sleep with one ear towards the door to make sure that they can hear anything that goes on in the house. While cats are more zoned out at nigh and aren't as aware of their owners situations. "Quit talking in circles. I already refuted that. "you can't even deny that cats are just selfish creatures because years of studies and years of human's interacting with them have proved it"Whatever do you mean? You have no source or whatever. Cats are not selfish creatures. That insults me because my cat is very sweet and polite. She is not selfish at all. A cat can be very sweet just like a dog. Because cats are reciprocal, if you treat them well, they will treat you well. ConclusionMy opponent has not refuted ANY of my arguments.