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

Thank you. I am inclined to disagree. Cat are not selfish, mean, less judgemental or any of the other things you said about cats. Dogs are trained to do certain things. A cat can be everything a dog is and more but a dog cannot be everything a cat is and more. My first main points will be the cost of keeping a dog and the hassle of looking after it . My second point will be why cats are better and their quality's. My final point will be how dangerous dogs are. May the best man (or lady) win :D. Firstly, you are obviously someone who hasn`t kept a cat at all in your life. Are you naming cats judgemental, not playful, unkind, unlovable, disobedient, unclean, selfish and mean? That is completely false. I can give a million examples of cats being playful, kind,lovable and lovely creatures. Cats are loving creatures that know how your feeling and there is nothing better to do than cuddle up with a purring cat after a hard day at school or work. Now onto my first point. You spend $1,500-3,000 USD per year on a dog. It varies depending on what kind of dog. On average it costs 500 USD a year to keep a cat. A dog can live up to 18 years and that's $27,000- $54,000 spent on your dog in a lifetime. What could you be pending that money on? Food? Clothes? Rent? Mortgage? Onto my other main point. Do you know how many times a day you need to walk your dog? Do cats need walking? Do cats need to go outside SUPERVISED? Dogs need to be walked 2 times a day. Who wants to do that? Would you rather sit and watch tv or cook or even go out somewhere or walk your dog. I think you would pick the first option. Most people are too lazy to walk, feed and take their dog outside . Dogs are a hassle to have. They howl in the middle of the night and feel the need to let their waste out onto your lovely carpet. They also smell and leave this distinct odour around your house. They shed fur which sticks to your carpet and furniture. They are obnoxious when your trying to relax and like a small child. Therefore cats are better than dogs.
EU mass imigration

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, You may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, Or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.
EU mass imigration

Well how are you nice to meet you and yes maybe we are into different levels of stupidness but you are definitely below me. How can you say that mass immigration is not bad for the eu. I don't know if you stay in your home below a desk whating for a mom to bring you your cookies with milk, But look outside woman are being raped by pakistan rape gang only this week more than 5 women have died. We are bringing people from other culture that don't have the same believes that we doo and may think this is okay its not we have to close the borders and stop accepting immigrants. Second look at paris for one second it looks like a somali market place i wouldn't be surprised if we started seing the sharia law apear now you couldn't go out with your friends and a meet with a couple of lovely women (if you have any)
Design Your Prison

That's a shame. Challenge me to a rematch if you want, I'll copy and paste The Cube's description in round 1, you post your prison in round 2 (Unless you want to post your prison in round 1), then I escape, then you escape in round 3, then I point out flaws in your plan, and you point out flaws in round 4, and I post the flaws in round 5, then you "pass" because we don't have enough rounds for refuting the flaws (but if your prisons are revealed in round 1, then we can spend round 5 refuting each other's flaw-accusations). If you have time to post, that is.
Design Your Prison

Okay let's do this the fair way.... I learned my lessonRound one acceptanceRound two we post our prison layout/design, cell design, don't forget the isolation chamber! As well as prison environment and guard routine, all that junk like the last debate "Escape Plan". The differences here are the restrictions which apply to borth parties in this debate...RESTRICTIONS to prison-The environment must be on earth (the planet), in a place we already explored-The prisoners must be fed and kept alive in the prison-Nothing may be put on the prisoners by the guards that prevent escape (tracker device, electric dog collar, nada) -The prison may only have a maximum of 50 guards (but you can hire more in total, having 50 guards coming and going on shifts), and must be able to contain at least 100 prisoners. When the escaping starts we are assuming that there are 100 prisoners contained in the prison. (It can contain exactly 100 prisoners if you want. *shrug*)-Eating utencils must be given for all meals.-Prisoners must have 3 meals throughout the day.-NO CAMERAS. This is the extra challenge posed that forces your guards to be more effective, as well as your prison-YOU CAN ONLY HAVE A MAXIMUM OF THREE WALLS PREVENTING THE PRISONERS ESCAPE: Cell walls, prison walls (if separate from cell walls), and the fence/perimeter wall. You cannot have a prison inside a prison inside a prison inside a prison..... (you get the idea)-The guard routine has to be logical (people cannot watch prisoners 24/7, it ain't happening!)Round 3 we both post our escape plans, escaping from the opponent's prison. Round 4 we rebut each other's plans with flaws that seem apparent that make the plan impossible.Round 5 we counter-rebut the flaws and conclude!Good luck and have fun! I hope this debate will be far more fair than last time!And no, I won't use the Spache complex prison, I'll use....the fearsome....||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||| Eh why reveal the name now, let's do it round 2 for more suspence and excitement.Any questions? Ask in the comments or PM me if you want.
THW ban biological parents from contacting children they gave up for adoption

I still remain inquisitive in the willingness of my opponent to revert to Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, or other similar types of debate flow structures for easier point construction and rebuttals, and am still waiting for an answer. Moving on: 1: My opponent's only response to any of my as stated arguments and contentions remains that she, as the instigator, has a more fluid and profound understanding of a obscure aspect of the rules concerning parlimentary debate, and thus should win by knowledge. Not only is this insufficient in justifying any type of advantage over me as the contender, but also displays her misunderstanding of the fundamental rules of debate. I, as the contender, have the right to ask certain questions concerning issues in the resolution and the debate to allow for easier understanding, and she, as the instigator, has the burden upon her to clear up any difficulties or obstacles in understanding that may be presented to either side. Thus not only am I allowed to make inquiries according to the resolution, but also in the context of the debate. 2: Furthermore, my opponent fails to address any of my contentions, arguments, or inclusive subpoints, thus she, by the rules of debate in any interpretation, concedes to the arguments made, and they can be extended across the flow. By not responding to any of my arguments, and not making any contentions that support her side of the resolution, I have nothing to refute and furthermore have nothing to disprove the fact that I should win this round as well as the debate on a whole. Thank you, and I am open for any other problems or further debate.
THW ban biological parents from contacting children they gave up for adoption

Thank you for accepting and here is my response to your inquiries which will clarify any confusion... THW is not alluding to the German Federal Agency for Technical Relief, it actually is an abbreviation for "This house will..." or "This house would..." in BP (British Parliamentary) or Canadian Parliamentary Debate Styles. The resolution is usually put in this form. The voting should still be judged upon who performs the best in the debate. Thank you.
THW ban biological parents from contacting children they gave up for adoption

Here are the conditions, rules, and other info. .. 1) This debate will be in British Parliamentary style. If not, you may suggest another. 2) I am con in this debate (Against the ban) 3) THW = this house will. .. 4) The opponent shall go first (in british parliamentary style, the government side presents first- the Pro or For side. ) 5) English please :) Bon Chance!
Pornography Is Excellent.

Ok conservative, Since you are so confused about the definition of the concept of Pornography, I will submit that the onus is on you to define said term. You do not believe that Porn is a form of human interaction that is primarily based on sexual intercourse and animalistic on human desire, and one that almost universally requires the exchange of money to witness and/or engage in. you believe, according to your argument, that this is instead the definition of prostitution. so, conservanazi, I leave it to you to explain to all of us, in no uncertain terms, what the definition of pornography is. In your own words. and then, I want you to define the difference between porn and prostitution. In your own words. this should be interesting. Second, and to simply repeat what I have already said (which you fail to acknoweldge, and/or choose to ignore as reflected by your repeated questions) porn is healthy. I do believe I quote Dr. Seufist when I note that: Porn is healthy for families large and small. Random sex must be engaged in by all. Porn is good with green eggs and ham. Sunday night porn should be requisite viewing, even on the can. Porn encourages men and women do what is not only natural and required to guarantee the survival of humanity, but it teaches kids how to get it on. I do not believe any person on this website, save perhaps you, conservanazi, would prefer to learn about sex via their parents and a staggeringly uncomfortable "birds and bees" talk, versus throwing in a copy of Forest Hump 2: Jenny Does Jacksonville and learning through observation. God bless pornography. Screw conservative, religiouslly warped zealots who believe their god frowns upon sex (among many, many other things) and thus they must force their silly morals upon everyone else (not to mention their inaccurate definitions of said sexual varieties). And finally, bless the poon. Yes, the poon. (That should make conservanazi blush in holier than thou horror.) Huzzah, porn! Huzzah!
Pornography Is Excellent.

"I repeat, for emphasis: Pornography is the greatest thing ever conceived by man (it is highly unlikely that woman invented porn)." - Pornography was not actually "invented" but defined. Some people find Michelangelo's David as being indecent, others believe it to be a great work of art. The general legal interpretation is, any obscene representation that is demeaning in nature. "Complete strangers getting together and f*cking each others' brains out is hot." - This would be an opinion not a fact it has no barring in a debate, just like I don't find it "hot" ...I find it disgusting. "It should be a federal law that Sunday nights are family porn night, and families shoul be required to gather around the family tv to watch such classics as "Schindler's Fist" and "Starfish Sluper Sluts from Seattle #3". It would bring people together." - I think that the majority of people on this website will agree with me that they would find it very uncomfortable and awkward and....just wrong to sit a watch porn with your mother or father. "You are incorrect to suggest that I am talking about prostitution, conservative." - "Strangers having wild animal sex with each other without any emotional attachment, using each other's bodies as though they have been intimate for years, and all for money." - Argument 1 - Definition of Prostitution from Webster : "Prostitution - The act or practice of or engaging in sexual intercourse for money." It seems to me what you described would be prostituion not porn. "I would submit, TheConservative, that your flagrant political and moral posturing (as is apparent via your name) is clouding your judgment." - Nope wrong, I think that pornography should be marketed and sold and it would not be wrong to use it if you want to. I am submitting the argument that porn is not the greatest commodity nor is it healthy. I would like all of the spectators to notice that my opponent ignored the facts I based on how porn is unhealthy. So I will submit them again in hopes to see an argument against them - According to http://www.wired.com...... "Internet pornography is the new crack cocaine, leading to addiction, misogyny, pedophilia, boob jobs and erectile dysfunction, according to clinicians and researchers testifying before a Senate committee Thursday." So I ask my opponent to tell me how forcing everyone to own porn is beneficial. I also ask that you say "everyone" should own porn, how are you going to explain porn to a 9-12 year old? Still waiting for an answer.
Pornography Is Excellent.

I repeat, for emphasis: Pornography is the greatest thing ever conceived by man (it is highly unlikely that woman invented porn). Complete strangers getting together and f*cking each others' brains out is hot. And right. It should be a federal law that Sunday nights are family porn night, and families shoul be required to gather around the family tv to watch such classics as "Schindler's Fist" and "Starfish Sluper Sluts from Seattle #3". It would bring people together. You are incorrect to suggest that I am talking about prostitution, conservative. Pornography is used precisely for the reasons I described: people getting together and using their bodies intimately to make money. I refer you to the oft stated fact that porn is the number one money making business in the United States. Now, if YOU are talking about prostitution, well, then, you're in the wrong debate. This is about pornography. I would submit, TheConservative, that your flagrant political and moral posturing (as is apparent via your name) is clouding your judgment. Just because you believe porn runs counter to your "Christian coalition/moral high ground/Jesus is watching us all, repent! Repent or be damned!" values, does not mean that it is wrong. Indeed, porn is better than all of the man-made inventiosn your listed so robotically. Porn is based on sex, a natural, healthy, essential function of human behavior. It is a natural extension of human necessity. And the other things you listed are not particularly things that man and woman could not survive without. Ergo, I say God bless porn! God bless sex as well (obviously, because porn IS sex) but god bless porn, for THAT is the man-man commodity that this debate is about. AMEN!
Pornography Is Excellent.

Thank you for the opportunity HoosierPapi Lets begin: "Pornography is the greatest man-made commodity on earth." - Ok so Medication,Food, Education, Literature, washing machines, vehicles, airplanes, music, beds, money, clothing, soap, toothbrush, ect ect all fall short to Pornography? personally I would choose any of those opposed to porn. "Strangers having wild animal sex with each other without any emotional attachment, using each other's bodies as though they have been intimate for years, and all for money.." - First of all your talking about prostitution here not pornography. Second of all how is this a good thing? If anything it is a negative attribute. "I think everyone should own porn. It should be a federal law." - According to http://www.wired.com... "Internet pornography is the new crack cocaine, leading to addiction, misogyny, pedophilia, boob jobs and erectile dysfunction, according to clinicians and researchers testifying before a Senate committee Thursday." So I ask my opponent to tell me how forcing everyone to own porn is beneficial. I also ask that you say "everyone" should own porn, how are you going to explain porn to a 9-12 year old?
There is no doubt that unicorns never existed.

The debate topic is that there is no doubt that unicorns ever existed. I will be arguing the negative, that is, my opponent is claiming that they can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that unicorns never existed, and I will attempt to put reasonable doubt in the voters' minds. Another way to put it is that a unicorn never existing is not doubted. The slightly confusing wording in the topic is to put the burden of proof on my opponent, as it would be impossible (baring a miraculous fossil discovery) to prove unicorns past existence. Definitions: Unicorn-The unicorn is a legendary animal from European folklore that resembles a white horse with a large, pointed, spiraling horn projecting from its forehead. I look forward to an engaging debate.
There is no doubt that unicorns never existed.

I thought it was a hypothetical type question and did not properly address it before. Narwhal, like all whales, are descended from ancestral animals whose remains are no found in Pakistan, considered most closely related to hippopotamus and ruminants (cows and so forth). There branch point from the other mammals, including horses, would have occurred maybe 75 million years ago. There are no distant ancestors of whales that had anything like a horn although one, Ambulocetus, had remarkable clown feet. The narwhal tusk is an outgrown tooth (or tusks in the ~1 out of 500 males that outgrow both incisors) and is apparently used for male dominance display and was very recently evolved- there are no hints of it in other whales. Now evolution is very powerful, but it has some well known and certain limits. It has great difficulty 'rewinding the clock', and it can only work with existing structures. As the narwhal evolved some 500,000 years ago, it would be virtually impossible to evolve: a complete set of grazing teeth, a new shoulder girdle for the front limbs, an entirely new set of hind limbs, and to have the process immediately converge so quickly on a pasturing lifestyle that the result would look identical to horses and goats. How quickly, and why would a horses mane and a goats beard form from this hairless creature, and why a single hoof (cloven or not) instead of three or five? Most of all, from the narwhal skull, it is obvious that the huge tusk would, on an equine form, project straight down, not a problem for male fighting but otherwise in the way. It would be far more likely to shrink rapidly or be lost entirely rather than migrating up to the forehead- the warping of the skull necessary would be patently absurd. As this is the end of the debate, and as Con's preferred scenario is demonstrated to be improbable well beyond a reasonable doubt, I request that the voters go with Pros position. Also, could some one go to the comments section and explain why my pictures are not embedding? It is cutting a lot of impact from my presentation, and seems to have killed the formatting for my argument in Round 2. Thanks again, balzeratman. It was more of a fun debate that I was anticipating, and I wish you could have seen my pictures. [. http://www.squidoo.com...] [. http://www.indiana.edu...] [. http://staff.washington.edu...]
There is no doubt that unicorns never existed.

I don't have a problem with any of the definition of the horned horse, the part of the definition I was disagreeing with was that the horn had magical healing properties, but since my opponent has agreed that I do not need to provide reasonable doubt for magical properties, I believe we have essentially the same definition. His point about Aristotle is true, however let me point out, all I'm arguing is that the unicorn is 'possible' or 'plausible', it would be impossible for me to prove it. I also grant that the Ringling Brothers 'unicorns' do not count either. However, my opponent has failed to even address my argument on the evolutionary possibility of unicorns, and their potential ancestor the narwhal. (1) In order for my opponent to show beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns never existed, he must discount the idea that the unicorn could easily have evolved from a narwhal and quickly became extinct afterwards. Indeed, modern times lacking a unicorn is not enough to show they never existed. Elephants are often hunted for their ivory and tusks, and nearly became extinct because of it. It is certainly possible unicorns were hunted as well. Also, the unicorn could have been a kind of intermediary between the elephant and the narwhal. Indeed, the evolutionary data allows for this intermediary period, the narwhal first emerged approximately 100 million years ago (2), but the elephant only came into being 50 million years ago. (3) Also, the elephant order, the Proboscidea, also includes sea cows, which look similar in structure to the narwhal. (4) Finally there has been, though slightly controversial, fossil evidence of a land animal with a single horn similar to that of the unicorn (5). Even if this is not proven true, the earliest dinosaur fossil was found in 1824 (6) so it is certainly possible one could still be forthcoming. Due to the fact my opponent has failed thus far to produce an argument to counteract a possible evolutionary development of the unicorn, and even if he does so in his final point, it is not possible to prove that the unicorn never existed as my opponent himself stated in his opening paragraph, and thus due to evolutionary facts, a reasonable doubt should rest in the voter's mind. Just as Aristotle believed a unicorn was 'possible', so too, I believe I have shown the voters it is possible. Unless there exists no reasonable doubt in your mind, please vote Con. (1) http://animals.nationalgeographic.com... (2) http://www.sciencedirect.com... (3) http://elephant.elehost.com... (4) http://www.sanparks.org... (5) http://www.unicornlady.net... (6) http://www.enchantedlearning.com...