BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Animal rights

I am debating the topic of Animal rights. I believe that animals deserve to have rights just as people do. Animals are sentient just as much as humans. They are able to feel and experience things such as belonging, hurt, happiness and fear. Throughout their lives they have no control over their future and well being. We as humans have taken over their lives and continue to make choices for all animals. Although many of these animals are given homes and or loving families, some are put in situations that are undeserved and because they are animals, they cannot do anything about it. We as humans at the age or 18 are allowed to change our own future if we wish to so. Or even before, if the situation is unfair or abusive we are helped by others to move to a better place. There are laws enforcing this issue and outlawing abuse to humans, but there are very few (and very vague) laws to protect animals. I believe that since they are not allowed to do so by themselves, the law should protect every animal"s life.
Capitalism vs. Socialism (Economically)

Okay to start, I am going to put Socialism on the stand. Allow me to be the plaintiff, and I will start my testimony by asking the witness to please explain why he continually steals money from the people, and why he wishes for the rich to pay so much more than the poor (Graduated Income Tax). He will say that the rich have such a disproportionate about of wealth that they, and everyone else, should pay taxes to help those less fortunate in the national round of affairs. In this way, there will be less people who are poor, and more people who are happy. Here is the thing that is not clicking for Socialism. When you take away money from the rich, including those who are big business owners, what do you think will happen? Do you think that there will be a sudden influx of workers? Well no, I am assuming not, they will actually fire workers, and diminish jobs from the economy. Now this sounds evil and treacherous to say for I am saying that these wealthy people should have such power over people who are equal to them in almost all terms except money; but consider it, they were successful enough to reach that position, and if you do tax away their money, they will reduce jobs, and those in need will not have a job. With much contemplation though, I gave myself a temporal excuse for this: these people will find jobs in entrepreneurship. But here"s the thing, this is not the case, in a matter of fact, only a small percentage of them will do so, otherwise the 6.7% of Americans who do not have a job now would be doing so. Let us talk now about increasing the tax on middle classmen. Every business that is owned by the middle class is going to have to reduce their workers or raise prices to compensate. If they reduce workers, that will counter the effect; if they raise prices, inflation occurs. And as they raise prices, it takes more money to pay for things that the consumer wants, and now things are less so being transferred from people who value them less to people who value them more. If we do not print money, prices going up would actually affect those who are poor a lot more than you might think. Think of it like this, you give a million dollars to a lot of people, if you make things cost a lot more, there is less stuff to go around for everyone--production goes down to meet the reduced demand, and now that not that many people are buying, standard of living goes down, and entrepreneurship levels go way down. These sorts of taxes lead to less jobs, less innovation, and a reduction in the standard of living. Do remember that I advocate the basic needs of all American citizens to be taken care of for those who cannot afford them, but by no means should they ever be given luxury. A one room apartment with 3 small meals a day, water, and sufficient healthcare is all they need.
sex

Sex is cool, bruh. It's the body without clothes on and body parts are put inside the other person. Unless you're lesbian, then it's a free-for-all with every body part you can imagine. If it's gay men sex, the pee pee goes into the butt of the other man. It's the most common gay man sex position, but not the only one. Straight sex can get boring, but the porn is phenomenal, believe me.
Students should understand what they are learning

I did mention earlier that it is good if they understood, but that its not a must. If a student was concerned about his or her career, he or she would make an effort to understand. Not every student must have a career-oriented goal. There are some who have attained greater success without indulging much into our institutionalized education, such as Thomas Edison. And not everything that we learn comes to use, which makes it irrelevant to us and thus not worth understanding. For example, we know that there are eight planets in our solar system, but how many of us actually benefit from this knowledge. I certainly haven't because I am not engaged in much scientific activity, or more specifically any astronomical or cosmic field of work. Therefore, that knowledge does not make much of a difference to me.
Humans Should Wage War Against Cockroaches

"What my opponent said that the roaches could not retaliate and it would be like genocide is completely true and those are the reasons why I chose roaches" Except the resolution states "humans should wage war against cockroaches" not "humans should wage genocide against cockroaches". PRO has thus refuted oneself. This alone refutes the resolution. However, for the sake of arguing, I will continue to tackle PRO's points. Engaging in a 'pesticide' will not cause peace as PRO state. In fact it would cause more problems, since many people will be against this extermination, the ecosystem could by impacted by exterminating them (cockroaches are both a food soruce for animals and are decomposers), and war would still exist even if cockroaches were fought. Hitler enaged in war even though he engaged in genocide of jews. The United states still fought in wars even though it committed genocide of Native Americans. There are many common threats to society, threats much greater than cockroaches: Poverty, Global Warming, and Crime yet war still wages on between other countries (ex: war in the middle east, conflicts in africa). My opponent does not refute that using fire and biological weapons can be dangerous, so why are we taking the risk of destroying houses, forests, sickness, and even possible death of humans just to get rid of cockroaches? Surely, the cost way exceeds the benefit. A large amount of money will be used to cause the killing of cockroaches using fire, biological weapons, and nanobots and even more money will be used to pay for the cost of damage. We would be causing more harm to ourselves then these cockroaches ever did.
Humans Should Wage War Against Cockroaches

What my opponent said that the roaches could not retaliate and it would be like genocide is completely true and those are the reasons why I chose roaches: roaches do nothing for our civilization and are just mooches. You could not compare roaches to people in any aspect except we share the same domain and kingdom (dogs, cats, chicken, rats, mice, pigs, frogs, worms, and many more species are not mooches they earn their keep y helping us with work, food, medical research and more). And also my point still remains that by humanity having a common enemy (the enemy of my enemy is my ally) we will avoid conflicts with our own specie. And roaches fight us every day by ruining food and carrying diseases (though they couldn't retaliate in a full scale manner). Your argument on nanobots is wrong. Although nanobots are in the research and development stage you cannot discount them as a weapon (during WWII the nuclear bomb was still in its development stages but it helped to end the war so why discount nanobots) for they could turn the tides of war. I know the virus could eventually come to kill us (via mutation and evolution) but we could create a cure and the virus at the same time and the virus could be designed with specific defects to limit how many generations it could produce and how dangerous it is to the human immune system. And in the case of fire, though it is unstable it is highly efficient and is the original super weapon (just ask any caveman or specie, and forest we destroyed with it). And buildings can be rebuilt and with new cloning technologies we will probably be able to reseed entire forests and reproduce entire populaces of organisms in the matter of days. The main purpose of my argument was to create a war that would unify humanity and prevent conflict against us and our fellow humans. In essence its roaches being a martyr for peace (even if its against their own will) and it would benefit the whole of humanity. Sources: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.ornl.gov... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com...
Humans Should Wage War Against Cockroaches

"And also remember the fact that cockroaches are not one of the species with the capacity for war" If this statement is true, then this debate is worthless considering that if cockroaches are incapable of war, then we can not declare war against cockroaches, since cockroaches are incapable of war. It would instead be a pesticide, or mass killing of pests or cockroaches without retaliation. This not war since a war requires both sides to retaliate. For example, hitler did not declare war on the jews, he did a genocide on jews, since the jews were powerless to fight. "biological and nanobot based weaponry which would only attack specific organisms" However, PRO's soure states that "Nanomachines are largely in the research-and-development phase" which means that they are not in full production, so nanobots would not work. Also there are few biological weapons that do not harm other animals, including humans and it is possible that these biological weapons can mutate to something more dangerous. Also PRO states that one can set fire on cockroach, however the use of fire is unstable and cause buildings and unstable forest fires and case massive destruction.
Humans Should Wage War Against Cockroaches

We humans have the capacity to produce biological and nanobot based weaponry which would only attack specific organisms. And also remember the fact that cockroaches are not one of the species with the capacity for war, and that currently we would win for the main weapon humans have been using to drive other organisms to the point of extinction for as long as our specie existed is fire (and roaches are easily burned) and we are the only specie (except for earlier hominids which have evolved into us) to use fire (except for a few species of plants which use it to disperse their seeds but its not really a direct usage of fire). Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Humans Should Wage War Against Cockroaches

My argument is that humans should wage war against cockroaches because they mooch off of hard working homo sapiens and give us nothing in return. This is a war we must wage to exterminate the bugs. Sources: . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... Kill Em All (the cockroaches I mean)!
Original Japanese Anime is superior to regular American cartoons

I shall assume the implication that we are talking about a child in the United States.==Refutations==I shall first refute my opponent's arguments.C1: Learning Japanese My opponent has failed to explain why learning other languages is, at all, important. If anything, this will clog up student's memory with useless and unimportant information - after all, the major and widely-spoken language is English. This would detract from a student's learning.My second point would be that many people agree that if you were to assume that a person's first tongue was English, then Japanese would probably the hardest language to learn. The idea that Americans would be able to learn the hardest language from Anime is preposterous. This would imply that either--a) The subject is devoting a lot of time to Anime.--b) The subject is mentally more capable than the average person.In situation A, anime would, once again, slow down a student's academic merit, and bother them with unnecessary entertainment. I believe that you can understand this - many times I have procrastinated homework to watch the latest episode of some random anime.In situation B, this would only account for the small minority that are able to learn languages so quickly. And they are irrelevant - because obviously there are other ways for geniuses to learn languages.C2: Better Animations My opponent has failed to produce a valid argument supporting the idea that anime is superior. Instead, she simply stated qualities that both anime and cartoons have in common.Cartoons can contain detailed drawings coupled with beautiful sound effects and good voice actors. Not to mention that their are a lot of different types of cartoons - ranging from silent cartoons to classics, such as The Three Stooges, to mystery cartoons, such as Scooby Doo, to comedies such as Calvin and Hobbes. ==Contentions== C1: Broad Subjects A cartoon would be any from of a 2-d drawing. Apparently, my opponent has restricted sources, so I cannot provide a source, but that is the basic understanding of a cartoon. Now, anime is restricted to animations and motion pictures but cartoons can vary between drawings and animations. C2: Reinforcing School Subjects Most cartoons, if anything, teach at the very least English to the people who listen/read. Learning and reinforcing English skills is obviously more valuable than learning some random language, especially in America. Furthermore, cartoons such as Scooby Doo, may increase and promote a child's creativity and analysis skills.
Original Japanese Anime is superior to regular American cartoons

This is a spar. No research or sources allowed. Thanks and let's get started! I am for the topic matter of anime being superior to regular cartoons for the following two contentions. 1. learning other languages while not in school 2. better animations. Okay, so on to my first contention. While we watch anime we can learn how to speak Japanese. It is a fun language and I personally have watched Anime over the years and can now almost fluently speak the language, and I didn't have any need to be in school for this! And anime has better animations. Anime is a type of show that has beautiful images and sounds, as well as a lot of different types. There are romances, dramas, horrors, ect. For these reasons I feel Anime is better than any other regular American cartoon
Emilrose should lose the vote battle

Rebuttals/Closing Argument Firstly, Pro tries to argue that on the basis of my debate with JimShady being highly unusual (and perhaps not totally in line with present site rules), that I should somehow lose; which seems rather contradictory as it wasn't me who actually initiated the debate--rather, I merely accepted and used it as a chance to outline one of the many persistent glitches that we have on the site right now. It's doubtful, that 'vote for whoever you want' type debates would become as popular as the 'rape battles', seeing as most people don't necessarily want to take the chance to lose. Especially if they have tiny ELO's, like a lot of current debaters on this site (many of the best debaters don't debate anymore.) A lot of debaters have fragile egos as well, and don't want to risk them being needlessly fractured. Pro then argues that 'fairness' should be what people vote on, but this makes sense only in regards to how good the arguments are, not how low/high the ELO of each debater is. In fact, that is is completely inconsequential. Pro additionally states that most of my ELO score is due to debating noobs and idiots who claim that the USS Liberty incident was an intentional attack by the Jews, but this is only partially correct; I have debated plenty of non-noobs. Unfortunately the individual with whom I debated the USS Liberty attack is a slow learner with some academic difficulties, but given that the debate received votes from the likes of bluesteel and had countless views (and was followed/commented on by a USS Liberty survivor himself), it was still pretty outstanding stuff. ************************************* It's abundantly clear that there's a major issue with Pros contention here, which is that I should lose the vote battle--but at the same time, he's saying that the vote battle is technically disallowed on the site and should thus be removed anyway. As Purushadasa would say, this is a logical straw man fallacy. He should really be arguing that the person who made the debate in the first place should lose, if the debate itself is a problem. Pro has also somewhat dropped my points about the issue that I went to such great lengths to highlight in the vote battle. And again, arguing that the person with the weaker ELO should win is just silly. So vote for me in this debate, and vote for me in the vote battle debate!
Emilrose should lose the vote battle

Lose as defined earlier means fail to win. I don"t have to show that her homosexual opponent should win the debate, only that she should not win. The Debate Should be removed In conversations with Airmax which took place mostly in private messages with me, but can be verified by him, he explained to me that if one type of silly debate becomes too common he thinks it qualifies as spam and should be removed. Here is post he made that was public and somewhat alluded to the fact he has this policy. www.debate.org/forums/debate.org/topic/102799/1#2829140 When my controversial rape battle www.debate.org/debates/Rape-Battle/1/comments took place something funny happened. A lot of other people started doing rape battles, it set off a rape battle palooza. All rape battles that were identical to mine were removed even if a few with a twist stayed up. I recall a rape rap battle not being removed and atleast 5 rape battles being removed despite my original one staying up. The justification he gave was that the original was not spam because at the time it was unique, but the following rape battles were all considered spam by his standards. Back before that he showed consistency with that policy by keeping up Stalin"s original vote battle www.debate.org/debates/Vote-Bombing-Contest/1 which is almost identical to the one referenced in this debate. If Airmax is going to enforce his policies consistently and he should to maintain fairness, the vote battle emilrose is in should be removed. Fairness Speaking of fairness. I would normally say that the person who debated better should win, but if we can"t judge debate skill, we are left looking at fairness. Since the site is not uploading right now, and I am forced to write this offline you"ll have to click on each persons profile page but you"ll see Emilrose has a much higher ELO than her opponent. Much of her ELO is from noob sniping or debating idiots who think the USS Liberty incident was an intentional attack by Jews. It is only fair that she give some of that unearned Elo back to the community and what other way than by losing a few of these stupid debates. Debate Rules The debate should be removed and people should vote for her opponent in that debate for the reasons mentioned if Airmax fails to do his job as a moderator, but the final reason she should lose that debate is that her opponent has more votes than her at the moment the debate started and at this very moment, despite her attempts to unethically recruit votes.
Emilrose should lose the vote battle

As agreed with Wylted in the comments, I will skip the last round so as to make things equal. **Why I, Emilrose, should win the who will get the most votes debate** As Wylted has clarified in round one, we are referring to the debate that I engaged in with JimShady, which at present has a total of 18 votes; he has 63 points, and I have 52. Although JimShady did state that people were to essentially vote for whoever they felt like, I feel that my contribution was superior to his and thus more worthy of votes. Firstly, there were more words. JimShady has 55 words in his round, with 2 single letters, while I have 86 words, and 2 single letters, which is clear evidence of more effort on my part. In addition, I actually provided an argument; an extremely good one at that. Not only was my argument relevant, as it refers to current site issues, but it was revolutionary. I had the chance to rebel against Juggle (the company that owns DDO) and illuminate one of the many technical problems on the site; something I did it with an unbridled vigour. (Sadly there was a character limit so I couldn't go into great deal or extend my case any further, but my point was made.) This is the kind of passion and courage that this site so desperately needs, and more votes for me--enough to make me win the debate--would further encourage me in this crusade and enliven the fight against Juggle technicians; perhaps, eventually, they would fix the issues on the site. Once again though, this would require one thing: a win for me! If you truly care about DDO, you need to make your voice heard and to vote for me. I highlighted a real issue and risked a lot for it, so the least you could all do is recognise that and assist me with my plans to make this site a better place; one that works efficiently and listens to its members. If you don't, then not only will Juggle continue to ignore us, but I won't be your friend...so there.
Emilrose should lose the vote battle

anyone who accepts this debate without my permission loses. This debate refers to the debate in the following link http://www.debate.org... Rules 1. Anyone who votes for pro in that debate will get to choose whether I vote on one of their debates or whether they should be included in a lottery for the chance to debate me. If rule number one does not appeal to you, I am willing to do a number of things in exchange for you voting pro in that debate. Do you need an ex called up and threatened? Want me to write your debate arguments for you? Do you need use of my signature? General life advice ? You name it and we can work something out. Now please vote pro. Some retard started 20 challenges and bumped this down, so I am editing to bump up Emilrose has decided she wishes to debate me on this. The title is the resolution. Everything above with the exception of the link to her other debate should for the most part be ignored. Emilrose should lose the vote battle. Emilrose refers to the user known as Emilrose Vote battle refers to the fore mentioned debate already linked to Definitions Lose- " To fail to win" http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The definition is meant to be a prescriptive one as opposed to a descriptive definition to avoid semantics and keep the debate on track. Only voters with an ELO between 4500 and 7500 may vote on the debate. To avoid having to go through the trouble of having half the votes reported and removed. Debate starts in round 2. I urge my opponent to be fast to avoid interfering with a tournament where we also may have to debate each other in the next round. Time limit is 48 hours to accommodate little emergencies that may pop up or tight schedules, but 24 hours should be the aim for posting, we will use the honor system to enforce that.