BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Breath mints are better then gum

Nice points Pro. My rebuttals: 1. "...the 'sucking' on the breath mints will also suck out the food bits in your teeth..." Possible, but Pro has no proof of this. If Pro is going only by personal experience, I'll add that I have had much more luck cleaning my teeth on the go with gum as opposed to mints. "...they probably won't want to taste your gum." The preference of tastes of gum or mints is entirely up to personal opinion. 2. "Well, you can still hear the sound of it and when someone is talking to you and you are chewing away you could only catch a little that person said." True...but what if the one who is chewing wants to be left alone, such as when wearing headphones? It wouldn't matter whether the user had mints or gum. Aside from that, one can just stop chewing when he/she is being spoken to. 3. "...breath mints are designed to stay in your mouth for a very long time and gum on the other hand, loses its flavor quickly." if this is true, does it matter? Your most compelling points seem to revolve around the idea that mints are better for all occasions and produces long-lasting freshness. Which are you considering more important, enjoyment or effects? What if the user doesn't want something in his/her mouth a long time, such as having a drink after the meal? My points: 1. Gum is cheaper than mints. When comparing the price per pack/tin of Wrigley's 5 gum [1] with Altoids Wintergreen mints [2], the cheaper option is a pack of gum. 2. If the user cares about flavor, there may be a smaller amount of sticks in a pack of gum than mints in a tin, but one stick is as strong as multiple mints, making the amount of flavor equal. 3. If the user cares about convenience, gum stays in your mouth for a much shorter amount of time (reinforced by my opponent's statements). [1] http://www.amazon.com... [2] http://www.groovycandies.com...
Breath mints are better then gum

Thank you for this debate. I will first defend my points and then attack my opponents points. Pro points: 1. My opponent has attacked my first point by saying that breath mints don't do anything with the little bits of food in your mouth left over, and with my dinner date example, what if you just get the soup? If you don't get the soup, and you get food bits in your mouth, then the "sucking" on the breath mints will also suck out the food bits in your teeth, and with the "kissable" mouth, breath mints offer the minty freshness or what ever flavor of mint you get, and if you are dating a nice girl, they probably wont want to taste your gum. 2. I bring up that breath mints are better for all occasions, and my opponent says that it is easy to silence the sound of chewing with one's mouth closed. Well, you can still hear the sound of it and when someone is talking to you and you are chewing away you could only catch a little that person said. 3. I bring up that gum loses its flavor faster then breath mints, and my opponent says that they dissolve in about the same time, breath mints are designed to stay in your mouth for a very long time and gum on the other hand, loses its flavor quickly. Time to attack my opponent's argument 1. All attack was in my defending my first point. 2. My opponent brings up that it is a relaxing activity, but what if you don't have teeth? or what if you can't chew gum because of your braces or something? but with breath mints it can be enjoyed by everybody, and if you have trouble chewing, then I don't think chewing a piece of gum wont be very relaxing, I would also bring up that I said for ALL occasions. 3. It is possible to buy big bags of mints, and if you are about to go out on the town you just grab a hand full and go on your merry way, from personal experience, I would take a handful of life savors (a kind of breath mint) and I would go out, and I would only use like 1 maybe 2, but I tried taking gum, it didn't last me 5 minuets. So I would ask you again to please vote for the pro in this debate. Thank you.
Breath mints are better then gum

Great opening Pro, First I'd like to post a definition Better: of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable [1] I'll use that definition just to clarify that the debate is about better overall, rather than a specific property being better. Pro asserts that it is unprofessional to chew gum. I have had no experience in a professional position, so I could not affirm this; however, I've never gotten strange looks while chewing gum. Pro's points: 1. "They give you a good feeling of freshness in your mouth longer than gum." The example presented refers to a dinner date. While breath mints last longer after expired, they do nothing for the small bits of food in one's mouth. Gum is better in this instance because of its sticky texture when chewed. Studies show that chewing gum reduces the amount of bacteria and plaque left over from the meal, including bacteria that causes bad breath [2]. This results in a cleaner, more "kissable" mouth. Aside from that benefit, chewing gum provides a convenient opportunity to insert a witty line (such as "want to share this gum with me?"), thus increasing the chances of a kissing session; a very desirable benefit in my opinion. Pro did say this debate was for fun. :) 2. "Breath mints are better for all occasions." Talking with gum is an easy skill to learn (personal experience), and it is easy to silence the sound by chewing with one's mouth closed. It is also a very relaxing activity, even after the flavor has worn off, and can put one in a pleasant mindset in any situation [3]. While breath mints disappear in the user's mouth, gum is just as easy to get rid of when desired; it can be wrapped in the original wrapping and put in one's pocket. 3. "Gum loses its flavor faster than breath mints." It is true that gum loses its flavor quickly, however, breath mints dissolve in about the same amount of time. I've found multiple times that I run out of breath mints just as quickly as gum, if not more quickly. Of the mints I've tried, the flavor isn't very strong in one single mint, causing me to go through them at a faster rate. In conclusion, I believe my rebuttals affirm the belief that chewing gum is better than breath mints. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://worldental.org... [3] http://www.wrigley.com...
Breath mints are better then gum

This is a debate saying (pro) breath mints are better then gum or (con) gum is better then breath mints. this is based on a fun kind of debate. I will post my argument and let my opponent accept and then post its argument. Imagine, you are in a very important meeting, you are bored, and wish you can leave as soon as possible, so you dig through your pocket, until you find a stick of gum and you put it in your mouth and start to chew away at it and every one looks at you and thinks that you are being so unprofessional. I am in firm pro for breath mints are better then gum, for these three points, 1. they give you a good feeling of freshness in your mouth longer then gum, 2. breath mints are better for all occasions, and 3. gum loses its flavor faster then breath mints. 1. They give you a good feeling of freshness in your mouth longer then gum. Picture this, you are on a date, and just had onions and pickles for dinner and your breath is stinky and disgusting, and then you grab a breath mint from your pocket and then your mouth gets purged from all stinky and foul smells. Breath mints were invented to give your mouth freshness and gum does it for about a minute. 2. Breath mints are better for all occasions. Breath mints usually dissolve in your mouth and you don't have to worry about it, but with gum you still chew and chew it until you find a trash can, its harder to talk with a piece of gum in your mouth then a breath mint. In places where you are supposed to be quiet, people can hear you chewing away on gum but you can just put a breath mint in your mouth and forget about it. 3. Gum loses its flavor faster then breath mints. Gum has been know for losing it's flavor very quickly but with breath mints, they have been designed for making it so that the flavor and freshness stay's for a very long time. The big business's of gum say it lasts long so you buy their gum but the flavor of gum goes away rather quickly, they have designed their gum to lose its flavor on purpose so you have to go through your whole pack of gum, then you have to go buy more packs of gum.
Tennis Doubles should get the same treatment as with Singles

I play both Singles & Doubles & to measure which one is more "intense" than the other by means of running around a full tennis court is overrated; You can have the same intensity playing tennis in both doubles & singles. One thing that I would like to point out is that there are exchanges of hits in doubles that cannot be done in single games, for me, this is the true measure of intensity. Also, as far as entertaining is concern, double games are more fun & exciting to watch than singles when it comes to attacks & defenses, and not to mention, a lot quicker too.
Tennis Doubles should get the same treatment as with Singles

When I mention "more fun & exciting", I mean, I just want to have my cake & it eat too - the main argument is that doubles are not being given the same treatment when it comes to advertisements, prizes, & most of all, even viewing time; thus making it less popular to those who just want to watch tennis. The doubles players have the same training that singles player have, & yet most doubles matches, if not all, are not stage in the Main Grandstand. I bet you if you have your cake, you want to eat it too, right? :)
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (See First arguement for description)

Okay. My stance is that we don't know if the dinosaur evolved into a chicken before she laid that egg. Pretty simple. My other stance is that the egg laid by the dinosaur does not count as a chicken egg. This is further proven by Pro's statement " not true because of the definition I gave." Therefore we can't assume the chicken egg came before the first chicken. My opponent sort of made the point I needed to make to win in round 4. May the voters decide the victor!
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (See First arguement for description)

To clarify, I have already stated, with much clearer and defined rationale why an egg of a chicken is an egg that hatches into a young chick. Meaning: "an almost evolved dinosaur's egg counts as a chicken egg" Is not true because of the definition I gave. An "almost evolved dinosaur counts as a chicken" is not true because an 'almost evolved dinosaur' is not, by taxonomy and genetics, a chicken. Con should really disprove my actual facts and rationales and state why it isn't true before going on to say that I "did a sly move in round 3" without any evidence of your definition. In the end, Con has not at all refuted my points, which is quite disappointing on my end. Your Round 4 can be used for summation, but don't make any new points or significant rebuttals as I cannot refute this.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (See First arguement for description)

Before I start my argument, I need to confirm something; did Pro change his definition? I feel like he might've. Someone aside from Pro say if he did indeed change his definition. Anyways, now for my response: My opponent says "not be defined by the animal which lays it, but by the young that comes from it." We are at an impasse, as I said before; we need to answer this question: Did the dinosaur evolve into a pure chicken, or did the egg hatch into a pure chicken? I think Pro did a sly move in round 3; "but by the young that comes from it". If an almost evolved dinosaur's egg counts as a chicken egg, then this would mean he won, but if we were to accept this, then we might as well say the first chicken came first. Or instead, I would like to claim that the almost evolved dinosaur counts as a chicken. (I realized that if he did swap his definition, that would include the T-Rex's egg, which is foul play.) I await my opponent's response. The last round will be summing up our arguments, and how the opponent attempted to refute them. Pro can counter my R3 rebuttal. Good luck.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (See First arguement for description)

Interesting argument... You said: "You said "When I say egg, I mean chicken egg". Then you go on to say that the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. If we are assuming the first PURE chicken (unless the mid-way evolved dinosaur counts, then good for me) is the first, then the dinosaurs' eggs do not count as a chicken egg. Isn't a chicken egg an egg hatched by a chicken? If this is true, then the first chicken wouldn't have been hatched from a pure chicken egg via evolution." But you seem to forget the definition of an egg: "An egg is the organic vessel containing the zygote in which an animal embryo develops until it can survive on its own, at which point the animal hatches. An egg results from fertilization of an ovum.". As you know, an egg's primary function is to hatch into the young of a species, and is defined as such and therefore should not be defined by the animal which lays it, but by the young that comes from it. I await your response. I believe it is necessary for you to rebut my first point, unless you accept that I am correct. (Ha...)
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (See First arguement for description)

Hmmm... It appears as though you created a flaw in your argument. You said "When I say egg, I mean chicken egg". Then you go on to say that the chicken evolved from a dinosaur. If we are assuming the first PURE chicken (unless the mid-way evolved dinosaur counts, then good for me) is the first, then the dinosaurs' eggs do not count as a chicken egg. Isn't a chicken egg an egg hatched by a chicken? If this is true, then the first chicken wouldn't have been hatched from a pure chicken egg via evolution. I believe we may be at an impasse yet again. Now the question boils down to "Which happened first? Did the first pure chicken evolve, or did the first pure chicken hatch from an egg layed by an almost fully evolved dinosaur?" Either way, I would like Pro to make a comment on this.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (See First arguement for description)

First of all, I reject your notion of the need to bring up god. I, am an atheist and veil that I are better off with the actual science. No we won't be saying: "The egg hatched into the chicken. No, the chicken layed the egg". This is mainly the basis of my argument. The main point is that from chicken eggs will always become chickens, but however, mutations that naturally occur make it that chickens don't always lay chicken egg (In a sense), through the process of evolution the first modern chicken evolved from dinosaur like creature, which is why the egg came first. Now, I don't want to deviate off to mainly debating creationism (which, so is appears, is your belief) vs evolution, however I believe an amount is necessary. ..
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (See First arguement for description)

I've heard "Which came first; the chicken or the egg" quite a few times. I'll be taking the "chicken came first" side. It would be impossible to do this debate without giving in to the other person without claiming there's a god. Without the god, we'd just be saying "The egg hatched into the chicken. No, the chicken layed the egg" over and over again. I say God created the chicken first because why the bother to make the first 10 eggs when you could make 5 chickens and 5 roosters to lay eggs which would contain chicks. I await my opponent's response (I think this'll be much entertaining! )
The death penalty should be abolished

Rebuttals 1) The right to life Whether or not morality is subjective or objective, a revelation has still yet to take place. Therefore, we must base our arguments off facts and not personal feelings or judgement. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."[1] The government's job is to secure our rights. Among those rights are life, liberty, and property. The states have the right to remove from society those whom choose to violate these rights. However, the states themselves can never take away these "unalienable" rights. For the states to take away one's life via capital punishment is for the states to function contrary to their primary purpose. 2) Death-Row inmates prefer death to life "More death-row inmates have been volunteering for their executions: Between 1993 and 2002, 75 volunteered for death, compared to the 22 consensual executions between 1977 and 1992. (Gary Gilmore, the first prisoner put to death after the Supreme Court reinstituted capital punishment in 1976, "volunteered" for his execution in 1977 because he did not want to live the rest of his life on death row.) Some critics argue that this shows that, contrary to popular belief, death is not the ultimate punishment for prisoners."[2] Some see the death penalty not as a punishment, but rather an escape from punishment. Reasons vary between volunteers. Some do not want to live in guilt. Others may believe in an afterlife, and wish to reunite with their families. The people to who these inmates have done harm had lives to live and goals to achieve. They do not have an equal distaste for death. Therefore, these volunteers would not be paying a price equivalent to the harm they have done.This concludes my rebuttals. Sources [1] http://www.archives.gov...[2] http://abcnews.go.com...
The death penalty should be abolished

Hello, my name is Forever 23 and I am here to bring forth my premise which is that we should not abolish the death penalty. My ensuing roadmap will include divulging 2 assertions into the debate. My first assertion is that the people put on death row have committed terrible crimes. What do people get on death row for? Not for small violations, but for felonies. These felonies can include murder, bombings or rape. Don't you believe that criminals should be responsible for their actions? According to Constitutional Lawyer and General Counsel to the Center for Law and Accountability, "The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise. But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral sense." The criminals should not be kept in the jails. They deserve to die, not live. Its a matter of fact that after these criminals murdered so many people, the US government should put then to death. My second assertion is that people should get what they deserve. Once those men have committed a crime, they have done an unforgivable act. These men and women deserve to be punished by the government. Life in prison would not be enough. According to Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin, "Society is justly ordered when each person receives what is due to him. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. Deserved punishment protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the wrongdoer pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. In retribution the spur is the virtue of indignation, which answers injury with injury for public good... Retribution is the primary purpose of just punishment as such... rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence have a lesser status in punishment than retribution." Thank you, please vote for the opposition
The death penalty should be abolished

I look forward to a great debate! According to your profile, you study the law. You have quite an advantage here. But not to say that you won't be challenged here. Opening Arguments 1) Wrongful executions are irreversible "Since 1973, 144 people on death row have been exonerated. As a percentage of all death sentences, that's just 1.6 percent. But if the innocence rate is 4.1 percent, more than twice the rate of exoneration, the study suggests what most people assumed but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed."[1] Wrongful convictions are possibilities that must be considered when talking about punishment by death; executions are irreversible. If we can guarantee our citizens an almost perfect death penalty system, then it should be taken off our list of punishments for crimes. In this case, 1 in every 25 people sentenced to death are innocent. This study suggests have many have assumed, but dreaded: An untold number of innocent people have been executed. 2) Executions come at great costs "Cases without the death penalty cost $740,000, while cases where the death penalty is sought cost $1.26 million. Maintaining each death row prisoner costs taxpayers $90,000 more per year than a prisoner in general population. There are 714 inmates on California's death row."[2] It costs far more to execute a person that to sentence him or her to life in prison without parole, which I believe would serve as a great alternative. All the money that is kept as a result can then be spent on other important causes, two being leukemia and clean and safe water. 3) Poor quality defense leaves many sentenced to death "A study at Columbia University found that 68% of all death penalty cases were reversed on appeal, with inadequate defense as one of the main reasons requiring reversal."[3] Inadequate defense can lead to death sentences. Some may have already been executed long before their cases were reversed on appeal. If these people had been sentenced to life in prison rather than death, they would have been freed from prison and would have returned to their families, saving their families the devastation of knowing that their loved ones have been wrongfully executed.This concludes my opening arguments. Sources [1] http://www.newsweek.com...[2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.oadp.org...
The death penalty should be abolished

ResolutionThe death penalty should be abolished. The Burden of Proof (Use its abbreviation, BoP, in case of future reference) is shared.Rules1. The first round is only for acceptance. This rule serves to confirm that my opponent has read, understands, and agrees to follow the terms of the debate. You may request an amendment to the terms of the debate. However, it should be done prior to accepting the challenge.2. Minor trolling is allowed, as long as it is not done consistently.Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.DefinitionsDeath Penalty - punishment by death. Any crime that is serious enough to warrant a death penalty is known as a capital crime or a capital offense.abolish - formally put an end toDebate StructureR1 - Terms and AgreementR2 - Opening ArgumentsR3 - RebuttalsR4 - RebuttalsR5 - ConclusionsThis debate structure should be strictly followed. I look forward to a clean and friendly debate!