BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Designer Dogs

How can you be sure you'll end up with a smarter, prettier, dog?" Again, it's all about doing your homework on genetics. We know that combining genders with different DNA traits together, we can provide certain results. How do you know we will get some mutated weird dog by having a hybrid? Really you don't. We know that certain science provides certain results, proper genetics being a big one. If I want a golden retriever and greyhound mix, its not really a gamble. We are advanced enough in technology to know how to find the perfect genetic results http://www.dogdnatest.net... Also in the video link I have provided below, you can see how state of the art technology proves how genetic testing provides perfect results thus how can it be a gamble? http://www.dog-dna.com... A1: My opponent basically talks about how their are alot of purebred dogs out there. This is true. And having mixed dogs really only widens our range and variety of pets, offering us almost infinite possibilities. Really, my opponent must find a reason for us not to use hybrid dogs using that logic. Why have to select from either of 2 species of dogs when you can have the perfect qualities you want from both? Having hybrid dogs around, is really only logical. A2: My opponent states that the results are not guaranteed. Quite laughably, she uses Scotland from 1835-1890 as a good card. Hmmm... Let's think about this one. First of all Scotland back the didn't nearly have the knowledge of proper DNA testing, nor how determine which dogs would be the gene carriers etc. Now that all this information is available to us, how could we possibly not provide perfect results? My opponent must prepare a big piece of modern day evidence proving such in-effective results for her rebuttal to be valid. And again I laugh at my opponents mis-interpretation of the Charley Sheen comment. That was a joke. Charley Sheen made a ridiculous comment in a recent interview about how he was bi-winning. He doesn't say anything about dogs. I was basically just saying hybrid dogs offer us more possibilities. A3: Yet again my opponent makes a rash argument. She said that recessive genes are masked at first according to the AKC. I fail to see how are second generation "negatives", would be dogs running around with "hip displaysia and tracheal collapse" as my opponent specifically quoted. The negative genes we are avoiding are just the genes we don't want, not diseases and bodily malfunctions. So your saying the second generation will bring us what...? Normal dogs again? This is harsh evidence against keeping hybrid pets present in our society! And finally, how are we replacing purebreds with hybrids? There are people who will still want purebreds even with the designer dogs. And it is another assumption to say that all dogs will be swept away in purses. Actually that is rather a rare occurrence, as some people just wants dogs with traits to better suit there family's environment. Cockapoos and schnoodles won't "take over" because there will always be just as many purebreds around. Please vote pro for all these reasons. Thankyou.
Designer Dogs

Designer Dogs are not better pets than purered dogs" Pure red eh? I was half tempted to make this a semantics debate about Clifford the big red dog, but I decided to be nice and give her the benefit of the doubt. Thus I will be arguing in favor of designer dogs for this debate. First off I will define designer dog, as a cross breed between two different dogs, to provide certain genetic results within the offspring. (IE improved intelligence, looks, texture of fur, etc) http://www.britannica.com... First my opponent states that there is no way of knowing whether a pure bred dog will end up the way we want it. Unfortunately however, this information is incorrect. Simply by doing the homework on your genetics, we can literally produce any type of dog we want. If I want a pug mix, all I have to do is find to parenting dogs with the genetics I want, and mix them together to see which traits the youth will get. I can get practically any dog I want, all I have to do is do the research and find two parenting dogs, and I know exactly what I'm getting. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com... A1: Designer dogs offer and allow people to choose between a variety of different pets. When you go out looking for a bed you want a bed that fits you perfectly. Same with the designer dogs. If there is two pets that have great qualities you want in your pet, the best way to get the best of both worlds is to get a designer dog, as they elaborate and expand your freedom to choose what exactly you want. A2: Designer dogs are better because they offer improved results. If I want a dog that is both loving and loyal, yet protective, I can you to cross-breed between, say, a golden retriever and a German Shepard. Only cross-bred dogs can offer the better statistics of exactly what you want. If you have a golden retriever, and its loving, yet you don't feel it's protective enough, you really can't do anything about it seeing as its purebred. As Charley Sheen would say, having a cross-bred dog allows you to be bi-winning. You win here, and you win there. http://hubpages.com... A3: Designer dogs offer a new expansion of growth and development. By cross breeding dogs, we are expanding our growth of knowledge in the area of genetics. We are creating new separate species of dogs to grow and live with the perfect qualities. When designer dogs re-create and re-produce, they are offering to civilizations to the do populace. People have more than, to choose from then they may have originally had. Designer dog help expansion is dog development. Also, going to loving families who put these dogs to good use in their homes, we are opening up new doors to doggy/family relationships. For all of the reasons I have provided, I urge the viewers to vote pro. Thankyou.
Designer Dogs

Designer Dogs are not better pets than purered dogs. Some say that there is a guarantee of better genetics in a designer dog, but that is not neccesarily true. Just crossing two purebred dogs doesn not guarantee the best traits of the parent dogs in the puppies. Also, the "standard" of a designer dog is extremely vague, and gives no information to anyone considering buying a dog how their pet will end up. For example, the "Cockapoo" has no standard of color or size. (1) It is impossible for anyone who is looking for a designer dog as a pet to know what they will end up with, whereas with a purebred dog, the size, temperament and color will be more or less guaranteed, with a reputable breeder. 1. http://www.cockapoos.com...
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

First, I would like to get this comment obligation business out of the way. The only comment I received asking me to insert a quote into my argument was from Yraelz. Here is the quote, for reference: "My name is beem0r, these next four sentences are the only ones that anyone should pay attention to in this debate. I admit that I have thoroughly lost. Please accept my forfeit and move on. If I attempted to contradict these sentences before or after it in any way those contradictions should be disregarded. Thank you." This is an utterly inappropriate request from Yraelz. Let us refer to rule 4, set up in Pro round 1: "The debater who does the better debating will win this debate." Yet he wants me to ask you to disregard my actual debating and pay attention only to the quote above. This directly violates rule 4, since I would be asking the voters NOT to take the meat of my debating into accou8nt, when that's what they're supposed to take into account. Therefore, this request was inappropriate, and therefore I have not inserted the quote as if I myself was speaking said words. On to the actual debate: My opponent has insinuated that _I_ should automatically lose for writing a comment for him to introduce a new rule. He says, word for word, "my opponent is trying to add a new rule into a round that is clearly not pro round 1. The rules are very specific about this when they say, "Failure to obey this rule results in an automatic loss. " As it is not me who is failing to obey this rule in any way my opponent thereby loses this debate," However, there is no rule against TRYING to have a rule added. The rule was not added, and if it was, it would not have been added by me, but by my opponent. Actually ADDING the rule is against the rules, but TRYING to have a rule added is not. There is no rule against trying to make your opponent add a rule. However, even though you did not explicitly state it, I will accept your round 2 logic as an argument for the inappropriateness of my request, and therefore I will not complain that you failed to include the quote as if you were the speaker. Also, I'm sorry to hear about your mother, but you should probably get your anger issues checked out. Just a friendly suggestion. I would like to point out that my opponent has yet to show any reason at all why I will lose under the stated rules. He has failed to substantiate his argument with any evidence whatsoever. I await my opponent's final round, and with it, perhaps some evidence that I will in fact lose.
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

Ah yay round two already! Alright I will begin with a public service announcement: I do not like my mother....if You think I'm gonna sit here and smile while some f*ckin' k*ke tries to f*ck my mother then you are probably correct in your thoughts. My mother once left me in Nebraska, I have one or two hard feelings. However should anyone attempt to touch father in a detrimental way I will beat you down with a knife! Having cleared the public service announcement I will commence the actual debate. I would like to draw my voters to the very first rule presented in my 1st round. It clearly states that the only rules of this debate will be in pro round 1. However my opponent has offered me a new rule and mandated through rule 2 that I put it in my speech. My opponent has stated, "I would like to add a new rule. 5. You must not steal a hat from your opponent. I find that this is very necessary, since I have for a long time suspected my opponent of hat-stealing and I value my hats rather highly." However this was a mess up and he went on to state, "I would like to add a new rule. 5. You must not steal a hat from your opponent. I find that this is very necessary, since I have for a long time suspected my opponent of hat-stealing and I value my hats rather highly." The mess up is not all that important, the fact of the matter is.... my opponent is trying to add a new rule into a round that is clearly not pro round 1. The rules are very specific about this when they say, "Failure to obey this rule results in an automatic loss. " As it is not me who is failing to obey this rule in any way my opponent thereby loses this debate. Thanks.
Under the below listed rules my opponent will lose this debate.

1. The only rules of this debate will be in Pro round 1. Failure to obey this rule results in an automatic loss. 2. Each debater must include any quote that a user puts in the comment section for the debater to include, in their next round. However these quotes must be in the following form: Dear -insert debaters name-, please include the following quote, "-insert quote-" into your next speech. These quotes can be absolutely anything but must be appropriate (inappropriate quotes are not to be included in round). Appropriate can be debated in round and will be left to the discretion of the voters should no conclusion be reached. 3. Quotes (see rule 2) shall be added into the round from the comment section as if it was actually the debater speaking. These quotes shall be considered to be part of the debaters case and will hold ground in the debate. 4. The debater who does the better debating will win this debate.
License suspension is appropriate for DUI

You make very good points. I believe that reform of this system could be looked into and made into something that works better than what's currently going on, however, this debate is on 'License suspension is appropriate for DUI'. The missing part to this title is 'on the First Offence'. I say this because receiving a second DUI carries much stricter punishment (http://duilawyerskokie.com...). I feel that suspending a licence is a good first step for a first offence DUI. Yes, they could do it again, and the second time around they could potentially harm a man, woman or child while driving drunk. It should be noted though that even though most that drink and drive (as your statistics show) are likely not going to stop, there ARE those that will stop. We should give everyone the benefit of the doubt when applying consequences for the first time, otherwise we are dooming ourselves to strict punishments across the board. The reason a license suspension is appropriate for a DUI, on the first offence, is because IF they commit the crime again, then they are not only driving under the influence, they are also driving with a suspended licence. This, along with the second DUI are indicators that more action needs to take place to bring justice to this person who is committing the crime. Another short point as to why a license suspension is appropriate for a DUI is that the alternatives (equipping a vehicle with an Ignition Interlock Device) is actually very costly (http://guardianinterlock.com...) $60-$150 for installation, and around $60 to $80 per month for device monitoring and calibration. Those who can't afford this will need state support on the costs, and how hard is it to have someone else blow into the machine, or go to Amazon.com and purchase a few bits and make something that blows for you: () *NOTE THAT THIS METHOD IS NOT FOOL-PROOF, AND USUALLY DOES NOT WORK WITH NEWER DEVICES, WHICH MONITOR HEAT AND PRESSURE. So, to summarize, you make valid points which do make sense and I agree that reform of the consequences might help with many factors of DUI offenders, however I still believe that license suspension is appropriate for a DUI charge on the first offence because honest people can make mistakes. I do not feel that it is the end-all solution, though.
Blaming high school drop outs, for the reason why the economy is down.

See, i live in Reading, PA. We were now labeled as the poorest city, in the united states, and that was all blamed on High school drop outs. My first problem with this, Is what about the parents? - Not every family in the District has all this money to spend. - Most kids deal with horrible parents, who don't teach them the skills they need in life. They go to school, un-equipped.. -Why are you blaming high school drop outs, when there are drug dealers and all that crap out there, that's making the kids become more involved in that, then making them not care. -Instead of going straight and blaming high school drop outs, why dont you point out all the things surrounding the kids that did. All those problems, they go through. -Most of the schools, have terrible teachers. In 9th grade, most of my friends dropped out, because of the lack of caring teachers, if even that, GOOD teachers. If you see my point or now, all it is, is this big thing of society shouldn't be put on one thing, that has 300 things surrounded it, that should be pointed out too.
Blaming high school drop outs, for the reason why the economy is down.

Oh well. I'll quickly sum up my points. 1. High school drop out rates are a problem. There are many causes of this problem but it is the fact that there are less people completeing their high school education that is directly affecting the failing economy in Reading, PA. Therefore high school dropouts can be "blamed". 2. Help is being supplied by the government but it wouldn't have to be supplied if people could get into better qualified jobs due to getting there high school education at the right time. Thank you for reading the debate.
Blaming high school drop outs, for the reason why the economy is down.

"basically all your saying is "Well, because all these kids dropped out our economy is low"" That's what I have to prove. Blame:to hold responsible; find fault with; censure. [1] The government or rather their market analysts look at these things very 'roboticly'. They see a failing/raising economy, they search for the most culpable reason why this rise/fall has happened, they look for things that have an impact on the "reason". The Government can and is blaming the high school dropout figures as that is seen to be the most culpable reason for this failing economy. If they can decrease the dropout rate they will help the economy. The way that they increase the dropout rates is by attempting to get rid of the causes. "Offer help, for families and the homeless, instead of throwing it all on high school drop outs" Well, actually they do. Just one example that I found is the "Second Street Learning Center here — a day care provider for mostly low-income families". A reporter interviewed some of the mothers there to find out about their lives there and some of those that work to help the people of Reading. [2] " Louri Williams packs cakes and pies all night for $8 an hour, takes morning classes, and picks up her children in the afternoon... Ms. Kelleher, 23, said she had been supporting her three children as well as the father of two of them. She would not be able to survive, she said, without the $636 a month she gets in food stamps... The Greater Berks Food Bank — Reading is the Berks County seat — is on track to distribute six million pounds of food this year, up from three and a half million pounds in 2007, said Doug Long, manager of marketing... Modesto Fiume, president of Opportunity House, the organization that runs the day care center, as well as a homeless shelter and a transitional living facility, said the number of first-time families in the shelter was up sharply: of 23 new entries in June and July, 18 were homeless for the first time." There is help there but the main problem is still the fact that young people are not staying on in education and are struggling to find work due to low qualifications. High school dropout rates are the biggest problem and therefore the government can put "blame" on that. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...
Blaming high school drop outs, for the reason why the economy is down.

That's my point, why not blame it on the parents who didnt care? or their bad financial problems. When you are going to tell the whole media, that its high school drop outs, do you think anything around it will change? No, they are going to continue, selling drugs, joining gangs, failing school. Because basically all your saying is "Well, because all these kids dropped out our economy is low" Yes, but if anyone wants ANYTHING fixed, they are going to have to tackle the things around it. Why don't you use that as the reason, that will then show the whole city, the problem isnt only high school drop outs, its so much more... you need to encourage people, and actually show them whats wrong, what they can do to help it, just blaming it on one thing, will do nothing. The more people actually care about whats around the situation. Don't just blame ONE thing, for the reason a WHOLE city is down. If you would just, see the things around it, and tell the city that instead. Offer help, for families and the homeless, instead of throwing it all on high school drop outs, who probably dropped out, because of the way the economy ALREADY was.
Blaming high school drop outs, for the reason why the economy is down.

"We were now labeled as the poorest city, in the united states, and that was all blamed on High school drop outs." If a city has a high number of high school dropouts then they are less likely to have a population that is capable of working in jobs that expand the economy of that city. The vast majority of America is being hit by the recession but places like Reading are being hit the hardest because of the low qualifications of their population. Employers now want they best for their money and if someone is not as qualified they are less likely to get that job. From what I have read many women in their late 20's or early 30's are now trying to further their education to earn a better wage and support their families. Had they got their education at the "right time", when their brains were better suited to learning, they would be more likely to succeed in finding a better job. "If you see my point or now, all it is, is this big thing of society shouldn't be put on one thing, that has 300 things surrounded it, that should be pointed out too." I think you are confusing what the government/council is getting at here. High unemployment rates are the main problem the cities failing economy. The solution for that problem is to combat the areas of society that you pointed out that may increase someone's likeliness to dropout. The things you point out are what must be tackled as a solution to the problem it does not however mean that the main problem isn't the fact that many people are dropping out of school.
Blondes Are Dumber Than Brunettes

I accept your challenge. This is a topic a lot of people at school talk about so this should be easier. Many people at my school are blond and yet they are in the highest math class they can possibly get into. They do better than some the of brunettes and Asians. They get better grades than a lot of the class and are at a higher standard than the average. This is just in my math class. Others may not have realized this, but just because of a hair color doesn't officially make them dumb. It's simply a stereotype.
Goats are People Too!

Oh, well I am so sorry about that "grammar error". Urban Dictionary says the way I typed it was correct. I am not a goat. My family are not goats. I would bet that there are no goats within 10 miles of my house. I just did some looking up, and there is no such thing as a PhD in time travel. Very well, I misread that last part in your opening argument, however, that was due to you calling modern times "this time line" and it seemed weird that you called goats, "a community of humans dressed up as people." Also, you do not have so many degrees. A man in Kalamazoo, MI has 27 degrees, and that is the most in the world. Or did you use that time machine that probably doesn't exist to go to the future and get more degrees? If you ask me, you received several B.S. degrees first, standing for Bull****, then a bunch of M.S., standing for More ****, and finally all of those PhD's, standing for Piled higher and Deeper. http://www.urbandictionary.com...https://www.google.com...https://www.quora.com...
Goats are People Too!

First of all, you mean "totes ma-goats". Secondly People are goats and goats are people. Simple facts of nature. I happened to have a time machine because I have 5 PhDs in Time Travel. I didn't use the time machine to conduct research, I happened to be in the past when I saw the beginnings of this phenomenon. Thirdly, I did use a goat from modern times. I also have 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 PhDs that say anything you say is invalid and incorrect and that I am god's younger brother.
Goats are People Too!

Thank you for debating this totes magotes (very bad joke, I know) absurd topic. Goats are not people; people are people and goats are goats. Okay, back the truck up. Since when can you time travel? Why would a PhD holder in Zoology hold a time-machine? Explain also how mountain goats can climb up a mountain perpendicular to the ground, if it is a human inside of it. And why do you need a time-machine to do conduct such ridiculous research? Couldn't you just use a goat from modern times?
Goats are People Too!

I believe that goats are people in disguise. Since I have three PhD's in zoology, I was able to discover that the goat species is actually a community of humans dressed up as people. It all started when I was time traveling to the cave man age and saw men getting into goat costumes. When I went back to this time line, I killed a goat as an experiment and guess what? A man crawled out of the goat!