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

A dog is man's best friend, but a cat really isn't anything. In order to examine this universal question I will look at both species' intelligence, job abilities and companionship. First I will compare and contrast both species' job abilities. The uses for dogs far outnumber the uses for a cat. Many people would breed dogs for such jobs as to hunt, where they would breed a beagle for it's speed and outstanding nose. Dog's have also been used to save many lives not only in search and rescue teams but also in the army. As an example, Larry Buehner, who served in Vietnam as a platoon scout with the Army's First Cavalry Division, said he is alive because of his military dog. "Callie saved my life on at least one occasion," Buehner said of the dog that accompanied him and his unit on patrols. "Dog units are worth a million dollars for everything they do ... You can't say enough, you can't give enough accolades to them." A German Shepard can be used as a sniffing dog to detect drugs at an airport or at a school. There are also seeing eye dogs, who lead blind and disabled people. Possibly one of the most useful jobs for a dog is a therapy dog. http://www.cnn.com... Here you see some therapy dogs comforting students during finals week. The jobs for cats are very limited, originally the cat was bred to kill mice, but the use for that has fell and is almost unnecessary these days. Because of the limited jobs for a cat dogs are clearly superior to the cats in terms of jobs to do. The second side of dogs and cats that I shall compare is the intelligence side. Recent science has shown us that dogs are in fact smarter then cats. This has been proven through size of brain relative to size of animal. Here is a study from oxford proving that dogs are smarter than cats http://www.cbsnews.com... It has also been proven do to the fact that dogs can read the symbols of humans such as pointing or commands. A dog understands that if he does a specified task then he will receive some form of reward. This intelligence is only seen in animals such as our closest relatives, apes. Thus dogs are indeed smarter then cats. The final way that I will examine the 2 species is possibly the most important, companionship. A cat will run away and run through the neighborhood and through the streets all day, you'll only see him once or twice in a whole day. A dog however wants to stay by your side, and he'll sit by you and be your friend. You can talk to your dog about your day and tell him about your problems, but because cats are so independent you can't be friends with your cat. A cat can be affectionate, but almost no living thing is as loving as a dog.
The State vs Sydney Briggs (Sydney Briggs is Guilty)

May it please the court, ladies and gentlemen of Debate.org. on behalf of the state of New Justice. as indicated, Sydney Briggs is more then just an average kid: He's the captain of his basketball team, he strives for good grades, and takes his high school career VERY SERIOUSLY. So much so, that he's even willing to destroy whatever posies a threat to said career..... Even for something as small as a middle school chemistry test! Ladies and gentlemen, If there is any justice left in this decaying system we call America. I implore you to not let this violent crime go unpunished.. Thank You.
The State vs Sydney Briggs (Sydney Briggs is Guilty)

Ladies and gentleman of debate.org, I feel as though I am obliged to represent Sydney Briggs. Sydney Briggs is more than just an average kid. He is a respected athlete as acting captain of his basketball team. He strives for good grades and takes his school career very seriously. He helps his friends, respects authority and his school. Evidence (or lack thereof) will show that Sydney Briggs was not the culprit and that he was nothing more than a scapegoat. I can certainly understand the feeling of wanting to find the person or persons responsible for such a reckless act of vandalism. Finding the culprit and ensuring justice is served is of the upmost importance. But arresting the first person accused, following an investigation that lasted no longer than a week, an investigation that has not a shred of evidence is not how justice is served. I want to remind the court that the prosecution has to prove to you that Sydney Briggs broke into his school and caused damage to tangible property and he did so beyond all reasonable doubt. This means that there cannot be an alternative explanation and that you have to find Sydney Briggs guilty of Criminal Trespass and Criminal Mischief. During the course of this preceding, you will be made privy to some of the evidence; I ask that you ask yourself one thing when reviewing the evidence: "what does this evidence show me and what doesn't the evidence show me?" I want you to know that the evidence in this case will show that it is not simply possible. It is not possible that Sydney Briggs could have committed the crimes he's accused. At the end of this case, you will understand why Sydney Briggs should be found not guilty of all charges and why he should go back to being a good student and the captain of his basketball team.
It is wrong to tax the rich more than the poor

I apologize to con and to my audience for such a late reply We are obviously debating on income tax correct? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well to my definitions: Rich: Having a great deal of money or assets; wealthy (1) Poor: lacking sufficient money to live at a standard considered comfortable or normal in a society (2) Wrong: unjust, dishonest, or immoral (3) Income Tax: tax levied by a government directly on income, especially an annual tax on personal income (4) Equal: being the same in quantity, size, degree , or value (5) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As con has stated in round 1, I will be about my contentions and have the rebuttals during rounds 3 and 4 Contention 1: Taxing the rich is wrong...and according to my definitions, it is logical that it is. The foundation of this country, the United States, was made upon the Declaration of Independence. And in it, it states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Now we can assume for this debate that by all men, we mean everyone in general not just the men but also the women. What does this mean? No matter the social status, color of your skin, or the gender, everyone should be treated with equal rights. And what does that mean? Well according to my definition of equal above taken from an online Oxford dictionary, no matter, how much you're worth, how important you are, or how much you can offer to society, you must have the same rights as anyone else. Now unless the Declaration of Independence was written just to brag to other countries about how great the United States is and unless the Declaration of Independence was written to lure everyone in "socially troubled" countries, then it is obviously wrong to tax someone who is "equal" to another no matter their differences in annual income. Contention 2: Taxing the rich more than the poor is just plain unfair. It is, in a way, punishing the rich for being rich and helping the poor for being poor. Well, the rich live in America and the poor live in America as well. So, they should both pay the equal amount of rent. Imagine this; a rich and a poor both want to live in an apartment. The rent is equal. However, the poor doesn't have enough money to stay in the apartment and is later kicked out. Should the owner of the apartments let the poor stay because he's poor? No. Think of the apartment as the United States and the apartment owner the government. They are basically the same things. I will leave off with that and look forward to the clashing in the third round Good luck con
It is wrong to tax the rich more than the poor

After reading through some arguments on the society forum regarding whether wealth was inherently right or wrong, I came upon a conversation that really sparked my interest between jharry and Cody_Franklin. So now I really want to debate this issue as well. Again, the resolution is "Is it wrong to tax the rich more than the poor" When I say Poor, I mean those economically disadvantaged in relevance to their sociatal standard. When I say Rich, I mean those who are in the top percentage of incomes. When I say Tax, I mean payment to the government out of ones income or inheritence. While there are no set rules to the style of debate I would like this to be, I want to point out that I am looking more for a philosophical debate and less of a debate about analytical evidence. Rules: + Catty, or offensive demenor will result loss of conduct points + Forfiet of even a single round will result in forfieting the debate entirely + Arguments not extended are only counted as drops if the argument is attacked Structure: Round 1: Con: Framework Pro: Acceptance Round 2: Constructive and definitions Round 3: Clash Roudn 4: Clash and closing statements.
Can you be religious and support homosexuality? (Judaism,Christianity,Islam)

So let's get down to thisMy adversary is claiming that you cannot be religious and support homosexuality. there is a fundamental difference in between being religious and following the teachings of a religion to a point. Being a religious can essentially be simply believing in a God by itself. You can believe in a God without following the teachings that are presented. So can you be religious and support homosexuality? Yes you very well can be. You can subscribe to the Christian faith and disagree with the Bible. So you can believe in that God and support gay marriage. You theoretically can believe anything you want. So the resolution is flawedYou most certainly can be religious and support homosexuals, but I think what my adversary was wanting to argue is it possible to follow a Christian life style and support gay marriage. This is what I am going to focus on for the second part of thisContention 1The next thing we must look at is can you be a Christian without the bible? If you can disprove the bible and subscribe to the Christian faith then the resolution is also negated. There are a vast majority of Christians that note the stories of the bible are not to be taken literally. I mean Christians already cherry picks verses that are not literal and metaphorical. [1]So going off the topic at hand all you must do is believe there is a God and accept him to go to heaven according to Abrahamic laws. That subscribes you to the Christian faith. So at the point you accept God you are a Christian and belief in the bible is not required for salvation. Romans 10:13 - For all those who call upon the name of the lord shall be saved. So what does it mean to subscribe to the Christian faith? Once you call upon the name of Christ and believe in him you are saved. Belief in the bible is not a necessity. If this where so the thief on the cross would not have made it to heaven. He called upon Christ in his last moment, and Christ promised that he would meet him in paradise. He had never acknowledged the teachings of Christ, just the fact that Christ is the savior. At this point Jesus promised him life in heaven. This goes to show that even from a biblical standpoint belief of the bible is not a requirementConclussionWithout belief in the bible as a necessity for salvation one can subscribe to the Christian faith and support homosexuality. The only place where we see that homosexuality is bad is the bible, and per my last few contentions we can see the bible is metaphorical , taken out of context, and belief in it is not required to be a ChristianLook at the resolution one more time"Can you be religious and support homosexuality? (Judaism,Christianity,Islam)"The key point I focused on was Christianity. All I needed to do was prove one point accurate to negate the resorption at hand. So again yes you can be religious and Christian and support homosexuality. [1] http://www.icr.org...[2] http://biblehub.com...
Can you be religious and support homosexuality? (Judaism,Christianity,Islam)

First I would like to say the guy in the comment, who said "im religious and I support homosexuality, argument defeated." Just because you support something without logic doesnt mean you have defeated my argument. This debate will be about reason, not emotion. The second thing I want to do is ask the contender why she believes you can follow God's laws and support homosexuality. This is something that boggles my mind. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam homosexuality is condemned. God calls these actions immoral and wrong. Now I understand if you could care less about God's laws, but that isnt what I'm asking. Im saying, if someone is truly following God's laws, homosexuality is a sin and immoral to them. -Evidence from the old testament: "Leviticus 18:22, You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it is an abomination." -Evidence from the Bible: "Romans 1:27, And the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." -Evidence from the Qur'an: "And the two who commit it (homosexuality) among you, dishonor them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone. Indeed, God is ever accepting of repentance and Merciful." Clearly these quotes destroy any argument that following these religions requires condemning homosexuality. If those quotes arent enough, I'll remind you of the story of prophet Lot. The prophet of Lot is believed by all three of the religions. He lived in Sodom with his family. The entire city was rampant with homosexuality (and adultery). He and his family were the only good people left in the city. He warned the people about their homosexual ways and said to seek God, but they mocked him. After being instructed by God to leave the city, Lot and his family witnessed the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Based on this indisputable evidence, I simply cannot see how someone can claim to be religious and follow God's laws, and at the same time support homosexuality.
Democrats are funnier than Republicans.

Well to put it as simple as it can get, republicans/conservatives/right wing/reds/whatever you want to call them simply are not as funny as democrats/liberals/left wing/blues/tree hugging hippies. First off, it can't hurt to go through to definition of 'funny' funny - amusing: arousing or provoking laughter I realise that finding something funny is very subjective and it varies from person to person, but to prove my point short and sweet, I'm just going to make a list off the top of my head of comedians who I would consider to be democrats/liberals. Conan O'Brien Jay Leno Adam Corrola Stephen Colbert Jon Stewart John Oliver David Letterman Chris Rock Jimmy Kimmel Dane Cook Richard Pryor George Carlin Dave Chappelle Chris Tucker Eddie Murphy Bill Maher Now that is 16 people just off the top of my head. This isn't even a definitive list, its just something I thought of just then. Generally, people think comedians are funny, if they didn't then these guys wouldn't be employed. I can probably name another 16 democrat comedians. I have yet to think of one well-known, successful republican comedian.
Democrats are funnier than Republicans.

My opponents argumentation revolves around 2 things. 1. He gives a 31 pt. list I don't. 2. George Bush is not a comedian. @1- First, my opponent never says how any of these people are funny, he just names them which is insufficient grounds to affirm. Also this is not a competition seeing who can list more people. @2- It DOES NOT maatter. No matter what the reason is, people find him funny. In this round a negative ballot is clear.
Democrats are funnier than Republicans.

I will respond to my opponents arguments letter by letter. A)As a commenter pointed out, the resolution does not make clear whether we look to intentional or unintentional humor. With this in mind, it does not matter that Bush is not trying to be funny. B) Comedians are not the only funny people in the world as my opponent is advocationg. The fact that these quotes are not "funny" is a matter of opinion and is not a fact. C) You could, but you didn't. D)This is completely your opinion let the voters decide whether or not the quotes are funny. Comedians are not the only funny people in society. It is not necessary thus, to be a comedian in order to be funny. Also, just posting a list of random people who some people may never have heard of does not affirm. Just for some extra humor, here are some pictures of everyone's favorite republican. .. . http://politicalhumor.about.com... That is a link to the 25 funniest bush pictures ever.
Democrats are funnier than Republicans.

While I find your response cute and clever, I have a few problems with it. A) George Bush is not trying to be funny with those quotes. He is not a comedian, he is just an idiot. B) They aren't even that 'funny'. Once again, the problem arises that it is very subjective what you have posted (A problem which I think I avoid by posting comedians which people think are funny, or else they wouldn't have a job). I'm sure there were a lot of people hearing those quotes and saying 'RIGHT ON MAN, YOU TELL IT LIKE IT IS' without even noticing what he was saying. C) It is just a small example of one person who isn't even a comedian. If you want to turn this into one of your 'Who can tell a better joke' debates, I might as well just start copy and pasting an entire George Carlin routine, or upload an episode of Late Night with Conan O'Brien. D) I can pick about six quotes that aren't funny at all (at least to me) but are actually scary. "My answer is bring them on." —on Iraqi insurgents attacking U.S. forces, Washington, D.C., July 3, 2003 "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000 "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." —Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003 "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere!" —President George W. Bush, joking about his administration's failure to find WMDs in Iraq as he narrated a comic slide show during the Radio & TV Correspondents' Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 24, 2004 "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." —to a group of Amish he met with privately, July 9, 2004 "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." —State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003, making a claim that administration officials knew at the time to be false If you think these are funny, I wish I had your sense of humour. The president of the USA saying these things should do nothing but scare people. My opponent has tried to weave his way around the topic at hand by posting a selection of quotes by George Bush and appealing to the democrats judging the debate. However, he is not a comedian, a lot of people don't see what is wrong with what he is saying, some people actually find what he says scary, and finally this is just one example of one person saying a few things. I've posted 16 comedians just off the top of my head. A PRO vote seems to be in order.
No lynching is the best course of action on the first day of mafia games like the one described

I disagree. I believe no lynching to be quite foolish. Parameters (or rather the one described): To define what is meant by mafia games in general, lets use a vanilla mafia game as the ideal game. In this ideal game which I am describing, lets say there are 2 mafia goons, a mafia godfather( who is immune to investigations and nightkills), a mafia prostitute, 13 normal townies, a cop and a doctor. Let us also say that the game starts during the day phase Since I don't feel like typing out an argument right now, I'll go with it as the greeting round and welcome my opponent to begin argumentation in his/her second round of the debate. Good luck. :)
No lynching is the best course of action on the first day of mafia games like the one described

Lets do this. I'll keep argumentation for this round simple. =================== Lynching provokes discussion | =================== We have to keep in mind that a constant flow of discussion is the key to the town's success. Discussion allows plenty of opportunity for potential mafia players to slip up and reveal their affiliation. When lynching players, this is most likely to happen on the basis that there will likely be players offering reasons for why player x should be lynched and players offering reasons for why player x shouldn't be lynched. This isn't the same for no lynching as no one is at risk of getting lynched, hence little to no motivation for certain players to be defending certain other players. In addition, when a player is lynched off, other players know said player's affiliation, hence can look back at the thread and gather clues concerning who defended said player who was in favor of lynching him/her. This is useful in determining who is/isn't mafia. On the other hand, in no lynching, players are essentially right back where they started on day 1 during day, with one town killed off and almost nothing to go off of. And that'll do it for now.
Public safety in NY

Once again I don't know if you read correctly but when I say description for a crime, the crimes are committed because unfortunately we don't live in heaven. For example: Lady gets robbed at gun point and calls 911 gives the description of a white male, blue jeans, shirt and a hat we are going to stop anyone who fits that description . Victims rarely remember the exact description of the perpetrator so we go by the description they give us. Cops don't make the laws either if it was illegal we will all be behind bars. Stop and frisk isn't only used by the NYPD its used by every police department under the original name of "terry stop". Nyc has 8.3 million people and over 30,000 police officers so of course the number of stops are going to be higher in Nyc. Los Angeles actually has less police officers with a bigger population of citizens and they conducted 875,000 stops and frisk when we only did 540,000. In 2012 729 guns were taken of the streets thanks to stop and frisk. That is 729 saved life's or even thousands since 99% of guns now days shoot multiple bullets, all it takes is one bullet to take a life. In 2013 we dropped the Stop and frisk numbers, shootings and stabbings went up. 2012 lead to 729 guns taken out the streets with stop and frisk, in 2013 police made 50% less stops and that lead to about only 600 guns taken out the streets and shooting victims going up 15%. The numbers don't lie. Thousands of knifes are taken of the streets as well but not all are reported because many cops cut people breaks especially if they are young kids.
Public safety in NY

The problem is that people don't have any reason to be stopped. They have done nothing to arouse the suspicion of cops and therefore they shouldn't legally be able to be stopped unless there is something that actually points to criminal activity. The stop and frisk program does not necessitate that. People can just be stopped no matter what, whether or not they have done anything wrong. You talking about descriptions after a crime has been committed has nothing to with stop and frisk since that has nothing to do with a crime that was ever committed. It has to do with a crime that MIGHT happen. These aren't people who match descriptions for crimes committed. We in the United States have the right to walk down the street without being stopped for no reason.