BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Intentional breeding of pit bulls should be illegal in the USA.

Con's argument seems to be based upon that a few other breeds of dogs are more likely to cause a fatal attack upon humans and other causes of death are more likely. This is completely true. Yet, let's take the example of a bank robber who shoots and kills the bank teller. Do police officers stand around and say gee "About 610,000 people die of heart disease in the United States every year–that’s 1 in every 4 deaths.1" [8]. Therefore, we should not bother to chase down the killer. No, law enforcement officers don't ignore murder suspects due to heart disease causing more deaths and for good reason.Now let's take the example of pit-bulls. Just because a few breeds kill more humans, doesn't mean pit-bulls should be ignored.Next, Con takes the point of view of sterotypes. Pro agrees there is some sterotypes with pit-bulls and not enough attention brought to the other breeds like German Shepherds which are more likely to kill. In opposition is the dauchshund and the chihuahua. If pit-bulls were truely a victim of a smear campaign, then wouldn't dauchshunds and chihuahuas kill about as many humans as pit-bulls? Searching the internet I could find no claims of a chihuahua ever killing any human. [9] Only two claims of a dauchshund fataly injuring a human. One fatal attack by a dauchund a Labrador Retriever-mix was also invovled. [10]. If this was truely a matter of sterotype chihuahua and dauchsunds would kill approx. the same amount of people as Pit Bulls, Rottweilers, German Shepherds, and Chow. If you ever watch Cesar Millian Dog Whisper you will see plenty of out of control small breeds. Yet, despite being out of control chihuahua never seem to kill humans. Blaming the human can only go so far. Ban intentional breeding of pit-bulls, this breed needs to end sooner or later. Vote Pro. Links8. http://www.cdc.gov...9. https://duckduckgo.com...10. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Intentional breeding of pit bulls should be illegal in the USA.

First there was some ambiguity about the word "breed" mentioned in the comments. Breed " 1. to produce (offspring); procreate; engender. 2. to produce by mating; propagate sexually; reproduce: Ten mice were bred in the laboratory. 4. to raise (cattle, sheep, etc.): He breeds longhorns on the ranch." [2]. No, pit bulls aren't a recognized breed [3]. "The term "pit bull" is most commonly used to refer to the following dogs that originate from combining bulldogs with terriers: The American Pit Bull Terrier - recognized by the United Kennel Club (UKC) and the American Dog Breeders' Association (ADBA) The American Staffordshire Terrier - recognized by the American Kennel Club (AKC) The Staffordshire Bull Terrier - recognized by both the UKC and the AKC " Yet, pit bulls come into existence somehow. Other than cloning, I don't see any other way a pit bull could come into existence other than accidental or deliberate breeding. Cloning is not part of the resolution and thus is irrelevant. Claim 1: Pit-bulls like any other dog can be kind and gentle. Warrant: Caesar Millon Dog Whisper [4]. Impact: This is in-case Con takes the angle that all pit-bulls should be euthanized in lieu of banning intentional breeding. Claim 2: There are many other dog breeds other than pit-bulls Warrant: Looking at the AKC website [5]. Impact: There is no shortage of dog breeds, if this breed no longer existed there would be little impact on the world. Unhappiness generated by the resolution would be minimal. Claim 3: Pit-bulls have killed other dogs. Warrant: Common knowledge, you can't not know this fact. Impact 3: Pit-bulls scare people. People love their dogs. Human unhappiness is caused by pit-bull attacks on other dogs. Unhappiness would be prevented with less pit-bulls. Claim 4: Pit-bulls have injured humans Warrant: "In 1994, the most recent year for which published data are available, an estimated 4.7 million dog bites occurred in the United States, and approximately 799,700 persons required medical care (1). Of an estimated 333,700 patients treated for dog bites in emergency departments (EDs) in 1994 (2), approximately 6,000 (1.8%) were hospitalized " [6]. Impact: See impact 3. Claim 5: Pit-bulls have killed humans Warrant: "Fatal attacks by these breeds of dogs (1979-1998): Pit Bulls: 66" [7]. Impact: See impact 3. Claim 6: Pit-bulls are more likely to kill than most other breeds. Warrant: "When we divide the population by the fatal attacks, we can get a percentage based on the dogs probability of fatally attacking a human. Pit Bulls: .00125 % Rottweilers: .00433 % German Shepherds: .00217% Chow: .00333%"[7]. Impact: See impact 3. Thanks for the debate, I can't wait to read Con's response. Links 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://www.chako.org... 4. https://www.cesarsway.com... 5. http://www.akc.org... 6. http://www.cdc.gov... 7. http://defendpitbulls.com...
Intentional breeding of pit bulls should be illegal in the USA.

I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con against the resolution. This is a normative resolution. "Full Definition of PIT BULL 1 : a dog (as an American Staffordshire terrier) of any of several breeds or a real or apparent hybrid with one or more of these breeds that was developed and is now often trained for fighting and is noted for strength and stamina 2 : an aggressive and tenacious person "[1] I contend that pit bulls are a menace to society and should not be bred. Its common knowledge that pit bulls are highly aggressive. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Superheroes

I don't define evil as killing a person, I define evil as knowing that you are intentionally harming someone to inflate your own ego. Because he is human, he would inherently act on his ego in one way or another. Since he had a mansion and billions of dollars, he inherently decided that he was more worthy of his things than someone else. That creates the choice to either support someone else or support yourself. Any time you choose yourself over someone else, you are saying that you are better than them. We all act with a certain degree of evil because of this fact. To deny that your own selfishness is evil ends up denying wisdom and power. I would even postulate that due to Batman's intelligence, he himself would accept his own evil his heart and try to defy it as much as he possibly can through actions of saving others from such pain. But that's just why I think he's a hero.
Superheroes

i is complete arguments requires a complete definition of evil. i would argue that any technical act of selfishness is construed as evil to some degree, but overall can be measured against good to determine the overall judgment of the person in question. However based on the technicality how your question and my definition, if Batman acts selfishly at any moment in his life, then he would be evil in some regard or another thus making him evil. An argument could be countered with, "Then is him being more good makes him not evil?" My answer to that is that if Batman is evil even a little bit, then he shouldn't deny that about himself. If he doesn't deny his evil, then wouldn't he be calling himself evil? If he calls himself evil, then why should i argue differently when he knows himself better than i does? But this is all predicated on an imaginary character so i doesn't really care if i is right or not.
Who is more MLG

My opponent here has done the least MLG thing possible. He attempted to cheat to win. "I only forfeited due to the fact that you would have gotten REKTI hang in my hot tub with Leeroy Jenkins, Snoop Dogg and Gabe Newell. We smoke weed every day and eat countless bags od Doritos and cans of Mountain Dew. Spooky Scary Skeletons plays in the backround as Thomas The Dank Engine and Freddy FuseBear are both wasted on my lawn, and MLG shrek and MLG Godzilla are constantly arguing in my front yard. My friend constantly shouts "Wombo Combo" as we all sit and enjoy ourselves 360 no-scoping noobs on Call Of Duty and Team Fortress 2 and G-mod.Rekt"Here you can see my opponent copying/plagerizing me. Hereby forefeitng all rounds, Doritos, and Dew to me. The most MLG to MLG
Who is more MLG

I only forfeited due to the fact that you would have gotten REKT I hang in my hot tub with Leeroy Jenkins, Snoop Dogg and Gabe Newell. We smoke weed every day and eat countless bags od Doritos and cans of Mountain Dew. Spooky Scary Skeletons plays in the backround as Thomas The Dank Engine and Freddy FuseBear are both wasted on my lawn, and MLG shrek and MLG Godzilla are constantly arguing in my front yard. My friend constantly shouts "Wombo Combo" as we all sit and enjoy ourselves 360 no-scoping noobs on Call Of Duty and Team Fortress 2 and G-mod. Rekt
galaxy note 4 is more useful than apple iPhone 6

Alright, thanks for starting this debate! To begin, you have to prove that galaxy note 4 is more useful than apple iPhone 6, and you must prove how this applies to everyone. To begin, I would like to state that as a person who has experience with both phones, I can say for sure it is 100% preference. If you prefer a more customizable feel, the note 4 is for you. If you prefer a more simple yet sleek design, you're prefer the iPhone 6. Also, the majority of people who have the note never use the stylus. It is simply more convenient to use your finger. Also, you just say that the iPhone isn't as powerful, yet this video suggests otherwise. I'd even say the devices are way to similar in that way to choose one product over another simply because of that. Neither is a super computer like you seem to suggest. But neither are ancient technology. They are both top of the line, and they are both engineered wonderfully. Next, let's talk about features the iPhone has that the note series either fails at, or does not include. Touch id- The samsung touch id was a complete flop. Ask any one with a samsung and they'll tell you the same thing. Of course this really shouldn't be a huge reason to have a preference, so well move on. Cost- the baseline cost for both phones is high, however the base line cost of an iPhone 6 is $100 cheaper than a note 4. Community- Apple has iMessage, and things that make using technology simple and fun. You can leave your mac, and pick up the same window on your iPhone. Both phones are incredible priced of technology, and if I could I would love to own both. Ultimately, neither phone is necessarily more useful than the other, but thats simply because your choice should be determined by your preference. Thanks
The Federal Reserve is Obsolete

I thought in R2 that you meant that that Fed was obsolete because we don't need it, I didn't realize until R3 that you meant to argue in favor of something other than the literal meaning of the resolution. We'll just have to leave it to the voters to determine what we should have argued. Even if we should be arguing whether we'd be fine without it instead of whether it is obsolete, the onus would still be on you to prove it and I think you might have failed to do so. Your only argument came in R3 and I don't think it is sound because keeping the money supply the same doesn't keep inflation at 0%, it puts it negative (deflation), and because of the decreasing prices it encourages hoarding of currency which can be considered a sort of investment, but doesn't mean more jobs or a better economy. I do agree that we could be better off without the fed, but I don't think you proved it nor do I think that keeping the money supply the same would work. I hope you got some value out of the debate despite our disagreement about what we should be debating. I appreciate the debate, maybe we can find another topic to debate sometime. Anyway it was my first debate and I still found it good practice. I will welcome any advice or criticism from you or the voters. Thanks for taking the time to debate me.
The Federal Reserve is Obsolete

On the contrary, standard rules state that R1 is for acceptance, R2 is where we illustrate our arguments, the title could be misinterpreted if left on its own, but I didn't, so seeing as though we both accept that we would be MUCH better off without the Fed, I don't think I have any quarrel with you, except maybe that you're an atheist but that doesn't have anything to do with economics, which has ALWAYS been my strong point, Jews are notorious for being good with money and economics.
The Federal Reserve is Obsolete

You can't change the resolution in round two. "We don't need the Fed, just keep the money supply the same and we will be just fine" means a very different thing than "The Federal Reserve is Obsolete". I'm sorry that you stated a resolution that you didn't intend to argue for, but I accepted this debate to argue against the resolution that "The Federal Reserve is Obsolete". I didn't even realize that you were attempting to clarify the resolution in R2, I assumed that you were arguing that the Fed is obsolete because we don't need them, I counter argued that it doesn't matter if we need them so long as it's useful to someone and I listed a few ways that it is useful to some people. It wasn't apparent until R3 that you meant to argue for something other than the resolution that you originally stated, but even if it was clear in R2 it doesn't matter, it is still moving the goalposts. Since you're the instigator and arguing the Pro side the onus is on you to prove the resolution that you originally stated when you created the debate.
The Federal Reserve is Obsolete

You should have stated the premise another way if you meant to argue something other than "The The Federal Reserve is Obsolete" I interpreted that rationally using widely accepted definitions. In neither the title nor round 1 did you offer anything other than the clearly stated premise that you proposed that "The Federal Reserve is Obsolete". I provided 4 ways that the Fed is both useful and used, a single example should be enough to prove my case. The assertion that you made in round 2 doesn't reframe the debate, you can't move goalposts even if you didn't mean to set them where you did. Incase my previous interpretation and argument are determined wrong or insufficient, I will continue to argue against the assertions you in round two and the beginning of this round. We can't keep the money supply the same. We have too many liabilities, we can't meet those with the current money supply. Keeping the supply the same is such a drastic change from current and previous policy that it would create massive unrest in the market and the world. The change could cause a run on banks, and the banks wouldn't have enough cash to pay out, ironically because the fed couldn't assist. Were you to design an economic system from scratch I can see reasons to consider a constant quantity of money, but we can't just make a switch to that now. There may be some strategies to dismantle the fed, but holding money supply constant and not replacing some of its other functions wouldn't work. The fed is useful for at least one of its stated purposes. It maintains the stability of the financial system. It has every motive to fulfill this function since it is a large part of the financial system. It did this with TARP. It also guarantees loans at predictable rates. The Fed's reports inform and guide the decisions of policymakers and investors. Keep in mind that I don't believe any of these arguments are necessary because I made a solid case in round 2. If I made my case in round 2 none of this should be relevant. This is just an extra layer of support.
The Federal Reserve is Obsolete

http://www.merriam-webster.com... Full Definition of obsolete 1 a : no longer in use or no longer useful b : of a kind or style no longer current : old-fashioned http://www.merriam-webster.com... Full Definition of useful 1 : capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose 2 : of a valuable or productive kind Obviously the fed is still in use so we must be arguing whether it is useful. It is useful if it serves some purposes. I'll enumerate a few purposes that the fed meets to show that it is still useful and thus not obsolete: 1. Allows the government to spend more than it is able to raise from taxing and selling bonds to citizens. 2. Preserves the status quo. 3. Keeps political power in the hands of the powerful. 4. Protects the special interests of bankers by allowing them to make risky gambles by allowing them to reap the rewards when they win their gambles, but bail them out when they lose. I don't believe the fed is beneficial to the average person and agree that we'd be fine without it (although I don't think it's wise to keep the money supply the same), but we're not debating whether the fed is beneficial to the masses or necessary, we're debating whether it is obsolete. It is not obsolete because it is fulfilling several purposes and is useful in meeting the desired ends of the economically and politically elite. So long as the fed fulfills purposes it is not obsolete, those purposes don't need to be benevolent.
There should be more benefits for military service members

Actually, there's really not much I feel like saying right now. Pretty crappy debate on my part, but that beats forfeiting 3 rounds I guess. Since my opponent hasn't objected to the economy being in a state which cannot afford to be focusing on extra military financing, you are to see this as true. Oh yeah, and you can vote based on Burden of proof too (PRO having not fulfilled it) if you want.
There should be more benefits for military service members

Since this is probably going to be a forfeit, guess I'll just slop up some argument anyway. First, I'd like to point out that nothing in my opponent's first round supports his argument. Esentially, all his example boils down to is that registering in two different states is a pain in the butt, thus, there should be more benefits for military service members. First, this is merely alluding to ONE benefit. Second,the intent of my questioning was going to be whether or not I could find a benefit that wasn't necessary and perhaps see just what kind of benefits the military service members could do without it. Essentially, I was going to argue that the superfluous benefit(s) be traded out in favor of the benefit my opponent was alluding to. Seeing as he has forfeited his 2nd and 3rd round, I'm simply going to continue with adhering to the idea that nothing my opponent says leads us to agree with the topic. Just because part of being a soldier is a nuisance for him, that doesn't mean there should be more benefits. In fact, given the current economic conditions our country is facing, more benefits should be out of the question for the time being. I'll expound on this in the next round (in case my opponent or anyone else has a problem) and extend my questioning.
There should be more benefits for military service members

Greetings to my opponent and many thanks for starting this debate. Since we have plenty of rounds to actually debate, I'm going to begin this round with some good old fashioned cross examination: =============== CROSS-EXAMINATION | =============== 1) Would you be so kind as to provide with a current up to date list of US Military benefits (as in the ones you currently have)? And what do you know? That's actually my only question. Go figure. Till next round. :D
There should be more benefits for military service members

Military members benefits are finally starting to increase. But they could use a few extras and for very valid reasons. In my debate I will not only prove but show you why you too should agree. Example: Most states you still have to pay registration fee to register your vehicle. I am a Michigan resident but while stationed in North Carolina I paid for a Michigan vehicle registration, yet I drove my vehicle on Michigan for 1 week every year or two. Keep in mind I am still totally willing to register my vehicle to show proper insurance, it is just a pain to do certain things as well when you are only home for so long.
Is philosopy a waste of time

Philosophy is not a waste of time. Philosophy is a way to study the world, the mind, human nature, music, beauty, sex, love, aliens, etc. Everyone has a philosophical view of life, a certain way of attaining knowledge. How do we know what we know? What are the limits of our knowledge? What is love? What is life? These are all common questions in philosophy. Philosophy can also be practical if you make it that way. Philosophy itself helps expand your mind to new ideas that you have never had before. After all, we ultimately rely on the perceptions of our minds.
The Christian trinity makes perfect sense

I will argue that the Christian concept of G-d being a trinity does not make perfect sense. According to the concept of the trinity, G-d is divided into three beings: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Not only is there no proof for this from the Bible, but it even contradicts the Bible! (Deuteronomy 6:4) "Hear, O Israel: The L-rd is our G-d; the L-rd is one." (Isaiah 44:6) "So said the L-rd, the King of Israel and his Redeemer the L-rd of Hosts, "I am first and I am last, and besides Me there is no G-d." (Isaiah 46:9) "Remember the first things of old, that I am G-d and there is no other; I am G-d and there is none like Me." (Zechariah 14:9) "And the L-rd shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the L-rd be one, and His name one." I do not think that you can get any clearer than that. G-d is one, not three. There is no one beside Him, and none like Him. The L_rd is one and His name is one. Perhaps the biggest problem with the trinity is that it includes a human being: Jesus. The Bible clearly states that G-d is not a man. (Hosea 11:9) "I will not execute the kindling of My anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim, for I am G-d and not a man. In your midst is the Holy One, and I will not enter a city." (Numbers 23:19) "G-d is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?" One can argue that Numbers 23:19 only means that G-d does not lie like a man, but that is incorrect. The more accurate translation is like this: "G-d is not a man and (therefore) does not lie." The Hebrew word here is "uven (transliteration)," which means "and" or "therefore." This word is used the same way in (Genesis 15:2) "And Abram said, "O L-rd G-d, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and (uven) the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?"" If G-d is not a man, how can Jesus be part of the trinity?
All Schools Should Make it a Requirement to be Able to Teach Arts and Music to Their Students

In conclusion... It is my belief and I speak for the children when I say arts should stay in the schools and should continue to be offered in school. The benefits of music are clear, they include benefits to the economy and benefits to creativity and mental health. For this reason vote pro, for I have stated the reasons why music is beneficial to children and why it should continue to be taught. My name is Brian N. Johnson Thank you for reading. Extend all arguments. Address previous arguments but don't offer new ones.