BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pit Bulls monster or media stereotyped

First off I have to say I love dogs and I own a German Sheppard who's name is Ace. Ace is on the "Dangerous Dog List" so I have to carry insurance on him due to his "Dangerous" Nature. I agree with you that pit bulls get the worst rap out of all dogs. But I think German Sheppard's and Pit Bulls alike are indeed a serious risk. I will just make a small list of my arguments. I wont write in ALL CAPS yet, I'll save that for the end of the debate when we are both good and angry ;) :P Point of view: I believe that dog owners cannot get the unbiased view of their animal. Take my dog Ace. I would trust him around anyone if I was there. Little kids other dogs, the elderly whatever. But I realize that I am part of his pack and am the alpha. I feed him and play with him. If he is alone around other people or if I am out of the house and let say some kid wonders into my yard his instincts will be to protect his home. Even though he is kind hearted and loving around me the wolf inside could come out if he feels threatened. As much of man's best friend as they are, they are still animals. Pit-bull history: Pit bulls were bread from the bull dog. Their purpose originally was to be a "gripping dog" to help hunters bring down large game. Later they were used to control livestock (like the G. Sheppard). Due to their large jaws and large skull they were eventually used in dog fights in the early 1800's. They would match Pit bull on Pit bull or Pitbulls against larger animals such as bears. Through human selection the more dangerous dogs were bred and the weaker were not or were killed. Sadly even today Pit bulls are the dog of choice for illegal fighting in the USA and abroad. Pit-bull Specifically begin targeted: Just going by the numbers PitBulls and Rotweilers combined make up for 73% of human deaths from dogs (2005-2012). Here is a list of the deaths just last year. http://www.dogsbite.org.... As much as I love dogs, I love humans more. These deaths could all have been prevented on part of the owner of the dog. "Yes I've seen the news about the bad pits but I ask this have you seen the reports on the good pits" When children are mualed to death no one cares about the good dogs. Only about the child. While I don't think all Pitbulls are killing machines. Due to their history of human deaths and unpredictability they need to be treated carefully. Your dog specifically was abused by their previous owner. Like I said above I don't think you will be able to have an unbiased view of your pet because you love him so much. But if you are not their 100's of years of breading can come out and possible hurt or kill someone. Personally for dogs on the Dangerous dog's list i would like to see a background check done before you can own one. Hopfully this would cut down on the Dog-Fighting. And possibly more sever punishment for Dog-Fighers. Sources: http://www.dogsbite.org... http://www.aspca.org... http://www.cesarsway.com...
Pit Bulls monster or media stereotyped

I have heard a thousand times that pit bulls are mean and aggressive by nature and can't be tamed. The main arguments I hear against them is they don't do well with elderly, other animals, or young children. My argument is this out of all dogs from the Siberian Husky to the Akita as well as most other large breed dogs why is that Pit Bulls get such a bad reputation? My background on this topic I own a 18 month old brindle American Staffordshire Terrier/ Boxer mix. He was a rescue and he was abused by the previous owner. He has never once bitten, growled or snapped at my grandfather, younger brother and unless he is with a male dog he is perfectly fine with other pets. These main topics as well as history on pit bulls can be found at http://www.aspca.org... So does this mean that my dog "Damon" is a ticking time bomb? Yes I've seen the news about the bad pits but I ask this have you seen the reports on the good pits?
Pit Bulls monster or media stereotyped

So as my opponent has lost interest in this debate I'll just finish this debate up by saying that while I have enjoyed this debate and have seen good points in my opponents arguments it has become obvious that he will never see that pit bulls are not all bad. Since I have already made my closing augmenter I say to my voters thank you for watching and reading this debate and please if you choose to adopt a dog choose a pit because they are good dogs despite a few bad seeds.
Pit Bulls monster or media stereotyped

Well it seems we have both lost interest in this. sad day :*( I will just re-iterate my points above. Though you made a good comeback in your second round I still cannot see past the numbers. Even if it is not the pit bulls fault and all on the owners. You are still more likely to be attacked by a Pit than any other animal. 60% of deaths for pit bulls alone. http://www.dogsbite.org... If I live in a neighborhood and have kids. I don't really give a damn about the owner saying there dogs nice when its responsible for 60% of deaths. At the end of the day its an animal and its not worth a human life.
Cleanliness is important!

Thanks to Marie for making this. I'd shake her hand as a gesture of good will, but she'd make me use hand sanitizer and that'd be dumb :PSince she's taking full BOP and all I have to do is refute her arguments from her round one, I'm just gonna make a few opening remarks about the resolution at hand and what we're really debating.The entire origin of this debate spawned from me messing around with Marie on a G+ hangout where she noted that one of my drawers was partially open in my room, and making a note about how messy that was. Me being the annoying troll of a person I was, I went ahead and opened all of the drawers in plain view of the webcam so Marie could watch as I intentionally annoyed her. Ahhhhh good times.That was the origin of this debate (that and she doesn't like the fact that I never make my bed). So for the sake of clarity on what we're discussing, I move we limit the conversation about cleanliness of one's living space rather than as a general idea or concept not only because it's more reflective of the initial cause of disagreement, but rather that arguing about cleanliness as an idea is really problematic.First, it's problematic because it's super vague. Are we just talking about making sure we shower once a day or are we talking about brushing after every meal, making sure you floss twice a day, dusting every week, etc. etc.? The actual ground up for discussion is really vague.Second, it's problematic because there's no real brightline on what it means to be a clean person and to be a not clean person. At what point do we cross the line from being clean to being unclean, and vice versa? You can talk to five people and get five different answers.Third, it's problematic because the scope of the debate would just be staggering. Talking about cleanliness can get us to talking about anything from brushing your teeth to vacuuming floors to using bleach in the bathroom. There just isn't enough time to touch on all of that.So because of it, we should be limiting our discussion to the cleanliness of a bedroom rather than just cleanliness in general. With that I'll pass it over to Marie and say Good luck and you smell :P
Cleanliness is important!

Hello and welcome! I am challenging this to you, (Matt) because you, my friend deny the importance of a clean room, but to further this, let's expand this to not just a clean room, but other things as well. The focus and sole purpose of this debate is based upon whether "cleanliness is important" or not. In which case, I will be required to give the BoP and my opponent is left to prove me wrong. I wish you well, Matt! Round rules: Round 1- accept and begin argument (opponent) Round 2- argument and beginning of rebuttal Round 3- full rebuttals Round 4- conclusions (no further arguments or rebuttals) Debate rules: 1. Civil manner 2. No vulgarity 3. Be considerate 4. Ready to learn 5. Use VALID sources only 6. Have fun!
I Believe that Anything, "Alive", Has "Mind" = "A Mind" or an Equivalent.

I'm a little bit baffled by what to do with this round. I was at least hoping for my opponent to try to put some sort of refutation on my arguments in his last round. But, sadly, all my opponent has done is restated his previous thesis. A thesis which I have already refuted. So I'm a little bit confused as what I ought to put here. I guess I'll just go through and restate my points and explain why my opponent's failure to refute them means that he loses this round.Contention One: Semantical ArgumentationThe entire premise of this contention is to explain what we are defining to be a "mind", since it is the premise of this entire debate. I defined a mind as a brain commonly associated with the one possessed by humans and animals, and not plants. So, if all things that have minds have life, then what doesn't have a mind, as per the pro case, cannot have life. But plants don't have a mind, as defined and conceded by myself and my opponent, respectively. But we all know that plants have life. That can be found in any second grade science textbook. But if they don't have minds, are plants suddenly dead in the pro's mind? This is the first of three sufficient reasons as to why the pro's case is wrong, which is sufficient to merit a con vote. This contention has been conceded throughout this entire debate, so this is one of the easiest places to vote con off of. Plain and simple.Contention Two: SolipsismI advocated for a form of metaphysical solipsism that basically says I can only verify that my mind exists. Everything outside of my mind does not exist. Therefore, pro doesn't exist (which also make his mind not exist). But he's still alive. But if his mind no longer exist, how is he alive? If his case is true, and since he's conceded solipsism to the point where he's conceded it's truth and is entirely true, then is he not alive? He would argue that he IS alive, but that would only contradict his case. This is the second reason to vote con.Contention Three: Zombies!!!My opponent conceded to be alive meant that one had the necessarily bodily functions to maintain life. Zombies are in exact contradiction to this, since they do not breathe, they do not drink or eat, and they do not have a heartbeat to circulate blood throughout their body. Therefore, by the standards imposed on all humanoid beings, they are not alive. But they have a mind! It may not work, but they do have a brain! So wouldn't they be alive, as per the pro case? This is directly refuted to my opponent's case, and it goes essentially conceded throughout the entire round. He tried to make an argumnt against it, but it was already front-lined by how I defined what it meant to be alive, a definition which he conceded. This is the third easiest place to vote con. All three of these points directly refute my opponents case and proves the resolution false. Thus, you need to negate.And since I have 5,000+ characters left, here's some pictures of lolcats to pass the time. ......... ............. ............ Ahhh...those kittehs. So trollin'.
I Believe that Anything, "Alive", Has "Mind" = "A Mind" or an Equivalent.

My Friend, Con is, a little, Clutching at Straws, now... Each of his, further Analyses reveals the Stronger Set of "Handcuffs" between the truth of thinking "Mind" and Life. From the Buttercup's "Death" to the point at which The Zombies are, apparently Dead but Still appear to be Living and thinking; the connection gets Clearer.. If you can, again, look around you before you vote and then match, as I said, the origin of Life and Living with the Use of Mind and "Thinking", you will, quickly reveal that they Are one and the same. Again.. Mind->I Think->I Am-> I AM Alive... Simply "Check out", wherever you are my theory; SEE and Assess where Mind lies within Life and Life exists with the Fullness of Intuitive Mind and I Hope I Can establish your Vote. They ARE "Joined-at-the-Hip" and it takes simple observation to realise this. You need look no further, with consideration of my case, than aRound you to Evidence, fully, my Assertion... Vote for Me if you Conclude that Mind and Life from your evidence ARE One-and-the-same. Vote Con if you cannot accept the Clarity of your Obervations?!... I Hope the Truth will "Out"?!..
I Believe that Anything, "Alive", Has "Mind" = "A Mind" or an Equivalent.

This Seems to be an Awful lot of Scientific "Hogwash"?!.. What Con has Failed to answer is a Scientific approach To FROM my Mind; I Think Therefore I Am Therefore I AM Alive!.. Con has, in fact, upHeld my argument by simply Specifying that there is No, Clear "Robotic" connection (as his argument goes) between Mind and Life.. Still, the Buttercup has its Teanciest element of thought BeCause it IS Alive and Both its Tiny amount of Life and (Mind)-thought DeRive from the equivalence I have originally Stated.. Furthermore, Zombies would certainly show that any "Life" they Did, "Sustain" was DiRectly linked to how much "Thought" they were (interestingly) enGaging in from Their concept of Mind... In Fact, a Zombie would be a Wonderful, ExPonent of my Case as it would show preCise eQuivalence of any existence of Mind to its relative "Living"?! Mind/"My"-Mind=>Thought=>I Am=> I Am Alive is where I would, Still put the ball back in Play?!.. Look around you, ALL who are examining my Case and see WHERE you think "(my)MIND", actually, IS?!.. You WILL see (as I have for the Last 41 years) that it is handcuffed to the Places where Life Prevails.. EVERY Time!.. The Table that your Computer is On is Suddenly "Thinking" once it is BACK in The Forest from which it Came?! It should be, quite sufficiently apparent from simple, experimental Observation?!..
I Believe that Anything, "Alive", Has "Mind" = "A Mind" or an Equivalent.

Sounds interesting, at least from what I was able to decipher.From what it appears to be, the resolution in question is that having a "mind" is equal to having life. Pro is in support of this, I will be refuting it. My case will take the form of three seperate but sufficient contentions:1. Semantics - the pro did not define what a 'mind' was in his last speech, so I will define a mind as a brain commonly found in humans and animals and not found in plants. But since plants are certainly alive, having a 'mind' does not always equal having a life. 2. Metaphysical - I will advocate for a form of metaphysical solipsism that states that everything outside of our own mind does not exist. Only I truly exist because only my mind I can verify exists. I cannot verify if pro exists, therefore he does not exist. The argument takes the form of this syllogism, which I will defend in my next speech:1. My mental states are the only things I have access to.2. I cannot conlude the existence of anything outside my mental states.3. I can conlude my mental state exists. 4. Therefore, only my mental states exist. 3. Troll - To be alive (since my opponent did not define this, either) is to have all the necessary bodily functions to maintain life. For example, for me to have life and be alive, I would need to have a pulse, be able to breath, eat, and drink water. The fact that I have a mind adds to me being a human, as well. But zombies have a mind, yet are not alive in the sense that we are. They have no pulse. They do not need to eat, drink, etc. since their bodily functions are no longer functioning. So zombies are not alive, yet they have a mind. So having a mind cannot equal having life.I await my opponent's opening arguments.
I Believe that Anything, "Alive", Has "Mind" = "A Mind" or an Equivalent.

I "Mind" / "Have Mind" therefore I Think therefore I Am therefore I Am ALive?!.. It seems that more and more people are contesting this?!.. I have remained "Sure", throughout My Life that something as simple as, say, a Buttercup has the tiniest (or greater) of what you would refer to as "Mind"?!.. When my own reclaimed itself after approaching a complete void, there was no Doubt to Me that I had, finally, confirmed My Own!.. I have remained (as I said) Sure that anything I have "encountered" as Alive seems to exhibit equivalent properties to what I regard as "Mind" with respect to Mine?!.. Therefore I am willing to contest that (portion of) Mind = (portion of) Life to quite a significant "Extent", if not, Fully?!.. Anyone?!..
A state has NO RIGHT to peaceably secede from America.

Since this is the 5th round, con and I cannot introduce any new points to the debate. So, I will use this round to summarize and explain why I have won this debate. Part One1. It was the burden of con to prove that "A" state had "SOME" right to secession whether it is a legal right or moral right.2. He attempted to prove a legal right by asserting that I agreed to a legal right to secession when I did not. That was his ONLY support for why secession is legal. He stated: "My opponent concedes that a legal right exists for States to secede. Even if certain circumstances must be met, the right exists nonetheless. "3. I proceeded to PROVE secession illegal through the implications of an excerpt from the Constitution:"1. THEREFORE, the land of the states by geography are subject to regulation and authority by the federal government through CONSTITUTIONAL DECREE. 2. Secession would lift this authority3. Lifting of said authority is illegal4. Secession is Illegal. "* My opponent forfeited round 4, so has therefore failed to refute the above conclusion, and thus has failed to prove a legal right to secession. Part Two5. He attempted to prove a moral right by referring to the 1st round where I wrote that "The Constitution and Declaration of Independence do allude to THE PEOPLES right to revolution" But I outlined the difference between "THE PEOPLE" and "THE STATE" The state is political and an extention of government, the people are not. 6. Con defended that the state is a proxy for the people. I countered that the state is a conduit not a proxy. Very Unsynonymous words. " 1. Hence, if the state is not a proxy to the people, then the state cannot hold the same rights as the people. 2. If the states do not hold the same rights as the people, then the "peoples right to revolution" cannot be justly asserted for the state, as the state is not the people3. Therefore, the argument that natural law gives a state the moral right to secession is moot. "7. My opponent forfeited the 4th round and hence failed to refute the above resolution. Therefore he has failed to prove a moral right to secession. RESOLUTION8. Since my opponent failed to prove a legal or moral right to secession for "A" state, I urge that he has lost the debate. Therefore I strongly encourage a PRO vote.
Donald Trump (PRO) VS Hillary Clinton (CON)

Your first point "the wall must be built to stop illegal immigrants". How would a wall suddenly stop illegal immigrants the people getting these immigrants across make a killing off of this and will find a way to get through. Also deporting all illegal immigrants would reduce the economy by 6% or $1.6 trillion dollars. If that isn't enough factor in the cost of deporting these immigrants according to American action forum deporting and stopping them from returning could cost from $420 billion to $620 billion while taking 20 years to do. The easiest and cheapest way to stop illegal immigration is to not make it necessary for people who just want a better life. I would also like to point out that I meant undocumented immigrants perform undesirable jobs I thought that was clear I'm sorry. You say that the wall in Israel has decreased terrorism, well we are not Israel. 80 percent of terrorist attacks have been committed by US citizens since 9/11 a wall wouldn't keep them out. Source: http://www.newsweek.com... I used this earlier but I wanted it to be easy to find. Source: http://www.vox.com... Point 2: I couldn't argue for Hillary on gun control because I don't agree with most of her statements I can't argue for something I don't think is right sorry if this messed up the debate. Point 3: Hillary Clinton was investigated by the FBI and was not found guilty of criminal charges I tend to agree with them on these matters. I pointed out that other politicians have covered things up to show that we wouldn't investigate this long on anyone else. In conclusion Trump's policies are expensive and ineffective and he is just as untrustworthy as Clinton. Thank you, I enjoyed this debate.
Donald Trump (PRO) VS Hillary Clinton (CON)

Point 1: Border security has optimal technology already, and has the Office of Technology Innovation and Acquisition to make any necessary technological improvements. The wall must be built to stop illegal immigration where border patrol cannot. The West Bank Wall in Israel has dramatically reduced terrorism and has been more successful than border patrol and technology alone. The wall will cost $10-$12 billion, and will be paid for by Mexico. There are many ways to have them pay, like stopping remittances, implementing trade tariffs, cancelling visas, and increasing visa fees. If the Mexican government does not wish to give us the money, we can simply have them take it out of our $50+ billion deficit with them. Onto your deportation point: you said that immigrants perform undesirable jobs - not illegal immigrants, but all immigrants, including the immigrants that come here legally. Furthermore, you claimed that deporting 11 million illegal immigrants would cause a 'huge' shortage in workers and consumers, yet they only make up 3.66% of the population and they only pay 0.38% of taxes despite costing the Federal Government $113 billion per year. Besides, they will be allowed to return legally and we can make up for it by increasing legal immigration. Point 2: I think you're missing the point - you're supposed to be arguing for Hillary on gun control (Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton). Hillary supports certain gun and magazine bans and she would most likely side with President Obama on his criticism of Project Exile. The only Second Amendment point I made that they agree on is the expansion of mental health treatment and preventing individuals on the no fly list from purchasing guns. Point 3: Quite the contrary; it was illegal to have a private server in the first place. On top of that, it is verified that there was classified information on that server. Saying she covered it up (aka lied) and that she is not the first to do this does not justify anything. You also did not respond to my argument about Hillary's not-so-secret racism. I cited this video already, but I'd like you to watch it and see for yourself who the real Hillary is: SOURCES: https://www.donaldjtrump.com... https://www.cbp.gov... http://learningenglish.voanews.com... http://www.theblaze.com... ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TssGgHgtrhM Before I conclude, I'd like to personally thank you for this debate.
Donald Trump (PRO) VS Hillary Clinton (CON)

Point 1. You say that we must build a thousand mile wall for $10 to $12 billion that is a terrible idea the plan isn't cost effective at all. We can surely accomplish more for less by giving border security better technology and if we make it easier for people to come to this country we will not have as much of a need for border security. Not to mention that immigrants perform many jobs that the average American probably wouldn't be comfortable doing and they do these jobs for very low wages. Getting rid of the estimated 11 million immigrants would cause a huge shortage of workers and consumers, just think of the food and amount of housing these people pay for gone from the US. Source: http://www.newsweek.com... Point 2: I don't have much to argue about on this. These are good ideas. Though I would argue that people on the no fly list should not be able to buy a gun this seems like common sense. Point 3:. Hillary Clinton was investigated and no wrongdoing was found she made a mistake and tried to cover it up it isn't like she is the first politician to do this.