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

"First things first I'm going to make my arguments simple in this round by starting out with the fact that I am definitely NOT intolerant for a little fun like my opponent states that I am. "I did not say that there was no other possibility. "I just do not see the purpose of a troll debate when you are trying to get your point across. "The intent of a troll debate isnt to get your point across. It's about humor. Besides, I knew I couldn't even USE a serious argument, but the debate had to go on. Your point has been across since round 1. "Honestly , I did not ever give my opponent permission to turn this debate into a troll debate, I put this under funny because the argument that dogs are better than cats is an argument that is not effective to the world around us. "Like I said before, putting this in funny came off as permission to troll. You could have said "no trolling" or used a disclaimer. "This is a funny debate because every one is entitled to their own opinion and that's what debates are about: sharing your opinion and backing it up with evidence. "I never said you weren't entitled to your own opinion. "A troll debate is not about supporting evidence it is about sharing unrealistic fiction. DOGS ARE BETTER THAN CATS! !! Vote for me! !! !! "If troll debates were about real evidence, they wouldn't be funny.
Dogs are better than cats

First things first I'm going to make my arguments simple in this round by starting out with the fact that I am definitely NOT intolerant for a little fun like my opponent states that I am. I just do not see the purpose of a troll debate when you are trying to get your point across. Honestly , I did not ever give my opponent permission to turn this debate into a troll debate, I put this under funny because the argument that dogs are better than cats is an argument that is not effective to the world around us. This is a funny debate because every one is entitled to their own opinion and that's what debates are about: sharing your opinion and backing it up with evidence. A troll debate is not about supporting evidence it is about sharing unrealistic fiction. DOGS ARE BETTER THAN CATS!!! Vote for me!!!!!
Dogs are better than cats

"I disagree with my opponents statement that ,'if you need a dog to protect you then you are doing something really dumb or simply do not know how to protect yourself.' I think that self defense is a great thing to have, but if a dog is willing to protect you then that shows a sign that they are very loyal and that you are their top priority."Cats also love their owners. They will tell you how much they love you. See? They love you."Also my opponent said that 'cats are cuter and make funny memes, so they can be great distractions from biotic things that are dangerous they can distract people through various methods.' I thought that my opponent said that if you need a dog to protect you that it is dumb and you don't have self defense, so why would a cat protect you by being a distraction if you knew how to protect yourself."Everyone needs outside protection at least once in their life, regardless of their intelligence. If the distraction to one's enemies consists of cuteness and hilarity, then it will be less obvious, therefore moer effective than growling and barking in anger."You can have fun with cats maybe, but not in the way that my opponent thinks so. Don't we all know that cats can't get on computers or play on an X-box, or play poker. I think about the realistic reasons why dogs are more fun and cute, I would like to know which source is more reliable: fiction or facts?"You, sir/ma'am, are ignoring the fact that you gave me an implied permission to turn this into a troll debate. Herer is how:1. You put this in the "funny" section, where troll debates belong.2. You clearly meant this for an easy win. The DDO user Imabench advises trolling a debate when it is obviously meant for an easy win. It is poor conduct to categorize a debate as "funny," thus implying permission to troll, then dismiss troll arguments because they are illogical. I already turned this into a troll debate, so now it's either address my troll arguments the TROLL way, or increase your chances of losing points for both arguments AND conduct. You apparently are intolerant of a little fun or do not understand the nature of troll debates.
Lowering the voting age to 16

Why should other rights still be granted to those who are 18+ and voting should be an exception? The idea that there is recession right now is a matter of controversy among pundits in the academic subject economics. The idea that getting into the wars was negative is certainly an opinion. Therefore, it is your opinion that America has been "messed up." "So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?" the opponent asks. The "why not?" approach isn't an argument for the opponent's position. The opponent has a burden of proof. Why would doing this better American politics?
Lowering the voting age to 16

I am not saying that every single right granted at eighteen should be lowered to sixteen, but just voting. It shouldn't be any lower because sixteen is just the right age to get into politics. Adults messing up America isn't my opinion, but a fact. Every decision made that led to this recession was made by adults. The decision to get into wars were that of adults. So, what could be the harm of giving us a chance?
Lowering the voting age to 16

The concept that the country has been "messed up" is strictly an opinion of the opponent. When you turn 18, you are considered an adult in the United States. Not only do you acquire the right to vote also the right to make a will, to make certain decisions (e.g., obtaining medical care) without parental consent, and even to donate organs. [1] I some states, it is the age used to get married and to buy cigarettes, such as my home state, New York. Why would the opponent like to change it to sixteen? Why not fifteen? Or ten? Or two? By lowering it to sixteen, we will be blocking fifteen-year-old people from voting; would we need to adjust it so that they could vote, too? The opponent's claims are unclear and unfounded. [1] http://opi.mt.gov...
Lowering the voting age to 16

Adults have forever messed up the country, so what would be the harm in allowing sixteen and seventeen year olds to also vote? Under the law of eighteen and older that we currently have, minors who are intelligent enough to monitor an election and unbiasedly elect a canidate are forced under the leadership of the biased and politically uneducated voting of adults. This is not fair. Lowering the voting age to sixteen would allow teens a fair chance at really deciding their future.
Palestine should be pressured regarding a peace treaty and land division rather than Israel

the map I posted is the practical map - where Israel really is, where Jews live, where you need to rip homes out if you want to give those lands away. Thousands of Israeli homes. Legal is a very loose term, the UN didn't acknowledge certain things (btw - the UN did acknowledge the 67 borders which look like this http://abporter.files.wordpress.com... so not all of the space from 47 is illegally Israel's, but only a small portion of it is.) "Under modern international law, military expansionism is considered immoral..." truly, it happened 65 years ago, very close to WWII, you might notice how countries conquered each other and took over huge amount of lands during that era, and some of these lands stayed property of those countries. Dare I mention that the US is built on native American land, and they should go back to England and return this land to the natives? (or is that not piratical because they mass-murdered most of them) "they are a country as recognized by the UN. " this year, they got the recognition of a country, because of technicalities and political interests. They do not run their own country in a lot of ways and therefore are not an independent country, if Israel was to stop supporting them they would have no electricity, food or water and would just die out as a country. " I will stick to international law for determining legal right to possession in the modern world" you are comfortably leaning on easy solutions, you need to explain why those lands are not recognized as legally Israel's, and why it should stay that way. "Many more Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces than by Palestinians, who have a right to defend against in invading force." Israel, each and every time, aimed towards military areas, they usually hide under civilian homes, hospitals and kindergartens, which makes it very hard to aim and not hit civilians. Gaza on the other hand, bombs random -innocent civilians- http://www.hrw.org.... That is no way to defend. It is not about the numbers, it's about intent, Palestinians intent to hit civilians and are very happy when they do. Israelis only intend to hit terrorist activists and are sad when they hit innocent civilians. Israel is not stealing water, it is providing Palestine with water, and when Palestine shows excess aggression by endless missiles, Israel uses this to stop them from doing such instead of sending airplanes to kill people. If Israel leaves some of it's territories right now, Palestinians will thrive to destroy Israel, and might strategically have a chance to, especially with the back of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon (all have borders with Israel and attacked Israel in 73) and Iran. Israel does not have to negotiate, it has a lot right now, a very strong army, it negotiates because it's humane. http://www.youtube.com...
Palestine should be pressured regarding a peace treaty and land division rather than Israel

Your current map of Israel is from Israel-Apartments.net. The 2nd map you posted, which is what Palestine is asking for is actually the current legal map of Israel/Palestine as defined by UN Resolutions. Because Israel refuses to acknowledge it and breaks international law to use military force to occupy Palestinian land does not make the legal map change. "What makes that land "rightly the palestinian's" anyway?"The UN Partition you mentioned in your opening argument. Under modern international law, military expansionism is considered immoral, and anyone partaking in it is (in theory) morally wrong."Israel is controlling Palestine's water because currently it is not a country."I disagree. They are a country. One that's being occupied and harassed, but yes they are a country as recognized by the UN. Now, YOU might not recognize them as a country, but fortunately for them, your beliefs do not deprive them of their nationhood."And to some extent have a historical right over the land which was their thousands of years ago, and taken away from them by many different people."There are differing viewpoints on this point, but I will stick to international law for determining legal right to possession in the modern world, and that is defined by UN Partition and resolutions, of which Israel has broken many. [http://www.ifamericansknew.org...]"Terrorist groups shoot missiles towards Israeli civilians, and to pressure them to stop Israel controls their water supplies, not to an inhumane level, and sometimes that's only what works. It's far better than throwing random bombs at them, don't you think? It is not relevant to the peace treaty in any way."Many more Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces than by Palestinians, who have a right to defend against in invading force. http://www.telegraph.co.uk.... There were evils and acts of "terrorism" committed by both sides.Water control is relevant. Israel "should" be pressured to stop stealing water to create a better tone for negotiating peace. They are the aggressors at this point, and need to withdraw and return occupied territories and share resources that belong equally to both parties in order to begin negotiating for a cease to violence from both sides.
Palestine should be pressured regarding a peace treaty and land division rather than Israel

map of Israel today (there is a note where Gaza is) http://www.google.co.il... what Palestinians are asking for - the UN division of 47 http://upload.wikimedia.org... it's important to know that the bottom part of the map is mostly a desert and not populated. the middle and top parts of the map are largely populated, 5,978,600 are Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org... the size of Israel is 8,019 / 8,522 sq miles http://en.wikipedia.org... which is note very very tiny. "As you have admitted, the land already belongs to the Palestinians so any compromise would be entirely a loss for the Palestinians and entirely a gain for Israel." - I don't know what you mean.. the compromise would be on the Israeli side, the land is largely Israel's. " Israel behaving as if the encroached upon land is not occupied illegally by Israel," if you are speaking of the settlements, they are not the major issue, and most small settlements are negotiable by Israel to give to the Palestinians. What makes that land "rightly the palestinian's" anyway? Israel is controlling Palestine's water because currently it is not a country. Terrorist groups shoot missiles towards Israeli civilians, and to pressure them to stop Israel controls their water supplies, not to an inhumane level, and sometimes that's only what works. It's far better than throwing random bombs at them, don't you think? It is not relevant to the peace treaty in any way. You have at no point shown me why this land belongs to the Palestinian. Not only have Israelis lived on this land for 65 years now, had about two or three generations there, developed the land technologically, and let it bloom, they have been given most of what is now Israel by the UN, and to some extent have a historical right over the land which was their thousands of years ago, and taken away from them by many different people. Also, this is their shelter from antisemitism, Israel was funded right after and from survivors of the terrible holocaust. It is the only way Jewish people feel completely safe. Even if they don't live there, Israel helps and supports Jews all around the world, it is the Jewish shelter and there is only one of those. There are a real lot of other Arabic-Muslim countries that could take in the Palestinians. http://www.arabisraeliconflict.info... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Palestine should be pressured regarding a peace treaty and land division rather than Israel

In using the word "should" in the resolution, I'm assuming you're referring to morality. I am not experienced at formally debating morality, (or formally debating at all for that matter), but I will attempt to appeal to the sense of justice and morality that I think most of the readers have within them. "Palestine, controlled by terrorists, is not willing to take any offer other than them getting such a large amount of land, that Israel just can not give. In fact, it would have to evict a very large amount of it's current citizens in order to do such a thing.... Israel was not in the right to take what was given to Palestinians in the UN division of 48, but that was 65 years ago." First I want to make it clear that the division "gave" land to Israel just it "gave" land to Palestine. There is no proof that Israel "can not" give them the occupied land back and even you admit that it was immoral for them to encroach in the first place (which was done using military force). Their encroachments are considered illegal, even today by the UN. Furthermore, encroachments are still ongoing [http://www.npr.org...], which is not at all conducive to negotiations. "Israel is willing to compromise some lands, but Palestine is not cooperating." As you have admitted, the land already belongs to the Palestinians so any compromise would be entirely a loss for the Palestinians and entirely a gain for Israel. From that perspective, it is not a compromise where losses and gains are shared. All the while, Israel blaming the victim for being unreasonable with Israel behaving as if the encroached upon land is not occupied illegally by Israel, but rather in dispute and open to negotiation with Israeli allowing or giving Palestine something. This reasonably causes Palestine to be offended. Furthermore, the "compromises" offered thus far by the Israel are crippling to Palestine. They deny access to fresh water (they already control the regions water supply allowing Palestine much less water than themselves http://www.amnesty.org...) and reasonable movement. I don't believe it would be prudent for the Palestinians to accept such terms and it is reasonable for one to even by offended by such terms as from their perspective Israel stole from them and then made a peace offer that makes gives Israel all they need and leaves Palestine crippled. By analogy, this is like Cartman from South Park eating up all the KFC Chicken skin which was to be shared with his friends then offering a compromise by allowing his friends to have all the "chicken parts". As Kyle (who ironically is a Jew) pointed out, the skin is the best part [].
Palestine should be pressured regarding a peace treaty and land division rather than Israel

Please pick up this debate if you know what Israel is, and if you are familiar with the situation. I believe that the current situation in the middle east regarding Israel-Palestine, is that Israelis are misunderstood and attacked globally. Israel is a new state trying to protect itself, it has offered a few divisions several of times, but Palestine, controlled by terrorists, is not willing to take any offer other than them getting such a large amount of land, that Israel just can not give. In fact, it would have to evict a very large amount of it's current citizens in order to do such a thing. Israel was not in the right to take what was given to Palestinians in the UN division of 48, but that was 65 years ago. We need to find a new solution and move on from our past. In the new situation Israel can't give everything back, it is willing to compromise some lands, but Palestine is not cooperating, therefore global pressure should be placed on the Palestinians and not on Israel.
Palestine should be pressured regarding a peace treaty and land division rather than Israel

Here's another one sided video that doesn't really affect our argument:Legitimacy of Palestine as a Country"it happened 65 years ago"MAYBE if it happened just once, 65 years ago, you could make an argument for Israel now having a right to their seized territories, but guess what? It's been going on continuously since then and has been happenening recently as I've cited, unrefuted by you. "Israel is not stealing water, it is providing Palestine with water. "Per my source, the water was to be a shared resource. You have failed to refute that. My point stands. "Israel uses this to stop them from doing such instead of sending airplanes to kill people. "Actually, Israel does kill people including civilians, like I've already said and cited. That's on top of destroying homes, and imposing a police state dictatorship within another country. "they got the recognition of a country, because of technicalities and political interests. They do not run their own country in a lot of ways and therefore are not an independent country, if Israel was to stop supporting them they would have no electricity, food or water and would just die out as a country. "The defining of country is actually a very deep an complex thing to do. Your definitions do not suffice. "because of technicalities and political interests" and "if Israel was to stop supporting them they would have no electricity, food or water and would just die out as a country" are really are just conjecture and prediction without explanation. The only pertinent and undisputable facts regarding their nationhood are that they have diplomatic recognition and are recognized by the UN. "Israel does not have to negotiate, it has a lot right now, a very strong army, it negotiates because it's humane. ""Might is Right" doesn't fly in the modern world when it comes to modern morality. Palestinians have a right to defend themselves despite the strength of the opposition. And to call the aggressor "humane" for sparing them from complete annihilation and instead starving their water supply and stealing land is wrong. To demonize the victim for retaliating is wrong. We should take a more fair approach if the goal is truly for peace rather than the demise of Palestine. Conclusion: The goal of the peace treaty is Peace. What we have in Gaza/West Bank is an ongoing cycle of illegal military expansionism by Israel, bulldozing Palestinian homes on their own lands, killing civilians, all in order to set up Israeli settlements and then calling it disputed land and the following retaliation and acts of terrorism by Palestinians also killing civilians. This is all very tragic and should stop to preserve life and promote peace. The aggressor, Israel, should be the one pressured to stop their actions in order to provide an environment within which earnest discussion toward peace can truly begin.
Hannibal Barca was a better general than Alexander the great

Alexander did leave behind a mark on history while Hannibal did not do anything to that degree, I agree with that. The thing is that while Alexander was making constant blunders, mainly out of pride, which was the downfall of him, Napoleon, and Gustavus Afolphus, Hannibal made no documented mistakes. If Carthage were to only have given Hannibal more support, Rome wouldn't have been the empire that is considered the most successful in the history books, Carthage would.
Hannibal Barca was a better general than Alexander the great

Although I do not know very much about Hannibal Barca, I have learned about Alexander the Great. While Alexander the Great had a few blunders, he also built cultural epicenters, such as Alexandria. Alexander led his troops and conquered most of Asia Minor, some of India, and Greece ("Geography Alive!" book). Alexander left a legacy for military generals after he died, such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Scipio Africanus, Julius Cesar, Pompey, Augustus, and Hannibal (Yahoo Answers, search: What are some famous leaders that were inspired by Alexander the Great?).
Hannibal Barca was a better general than Alexander the great

If either one of us asks for sources of a certain fact the other uses, the sources must be given. I will start the debate by talking about tactical blunders Alexander has made. First of all, Alexander always charged into battle with the companion cavalry. This may have given his soldiers more morale, but this aggressive behavior ended up resulting in his death (he got poisoning from an arrow during the Malian campaign). He also made a strategic mistake after the Malian campaign. Rather than walking on the roads in his territory, he decided it was more appropriate to march his entire army through a desert, losing a lot of his soldiers, just to show he was better than a previous general who lost his army in that desert. So, although Alexander had some instances of tactical genius, he made a fair amount of mistakes. The second thing I would like to talk about is Hannibal's successes. In logistics and tactics. I do not need to talk much about logistics; Hannibal moved an army across the alps. Hannibal was also a brilliant tactician. He managed to win every battle he fought in Italy, including the battle of Cannae, which involved surrounding an enemy almost twice the size of his army (this is arguably the greatest victory in military history and is still studied thoroughly at military academies). The only battle Hannibal lost in the second Punic war was the battle of Zama. We don't actually have a good idea about what happened in the battle of Zama or how disadvantageous Hannibal's position was due to the Carthaginian records being destroyed. The war most likely wouldn't have been lost if Carthage were to have sent Hannibal the reinforcements he constantly asked for. I look forward to seeing your arguments.