BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dogs Are Better Than Cats

I will refute my opponents case. (These are his points) P1: Dogs can be trained to not jump on people with a firm hand and a firm 'no'. Cats don't greet people because they are antisocial. No cats I know greet me when i am friendly and want to meet the cat P2:Yes, dogs smell bad. but if they don't get soaking wet, they don't smell like "wet dog" P3: Again, a dog can be trained out of barking and yelping obnoxiously. a well trained (or calm) dog doesn't even bark at strangers. And one could argue, a dog that barks is better than a quiet cat, because you can acknowledge that the dog is there, and not hiding under your bed, mooching off of your catfood supply P4: Dogs needing to walk provides a source of exercise, when an otherwise motionless person could gain weight and lose their fitness and health P5: How I keep my dog entertained-buy a coil of rope, cut some off and tie knots at both ends. a toy like this kept my dog entertained for over nine months(and counting) P6: the problem with a litter box is that you have to empty it. this is a very menial household task, and i would say it smells worse than the "wet dog" smell mentioned in point two P7: this contention only helps to prove my point specified in (my) point one; that cats are unfazed if you leave them, when a dog would miss you and show it's love for you. (my side of argument) Cats grooming, specified in my opponents P2, is a main cause of minor irritation and allergy that also makes people unable to stand cats. Not only are cats heartless, selfish, and downright mean, but they aren't even hypoallergenic.
Privately funded religious entities have the right to dscriminate.

The problem with liberals is that they twist Scripture. My pastor has the right to discriminate against gay couples because his brand of Christianity dsyd that's wrong. I disagree with him, but my pastor still has First Amendment rights. Mu favorite Christian bookstore has the right to not engrave praises to the Quran on a book or Bible. I used to get paid to design jewelry, and I have the right to refuse service to somone that wants me to design something that violates my beliefs. Freedom of religion is a right.
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed

"The judges are free to vote whichever way they choose. The definition I offered is fair, and neither abuses the PRO or CON side. It fits the context of this debate, and, through implications, was offered in the first round. That's all I'm saying. " Well, then, it should have been offered in the first round without the need of implications. A Round 1 definition trumps a Round 2 definition. A sourced definition trumps an un-sourced definition. My definition trumps my opponent's definition. "Your defensive of semantics using robbery as an example is a flawed one. Why would someone ask their neighbor to call the police if something suspicious was happening? Because they don't want something suspicious happening at their house! You can obviously attempt to protect yourself, but obviously it can't work always. " Exactly. Your defense did not work. I used a semantical argument that you did not prepare for, like the man asking his neighbor to report suspicious behavior. He was not prepared for his neighbor robbing his house. "My opponent uses 'if', as in 'If the wind were strong enough. .. ' He never makes a claim contrary to my position last round, in which the wind couldn't be strong enough to cause Humpty to fall. " If the wind was the reason, then it must have been strong enough to push Humpty. If the wind was not the reason, then we move on. "Pressing Humpty's foot against the wall would not have been him 'pressing against with force in order to drive or impel' as my opponent's definition states. Who would sit on a wall and purposely fall off? As Humpty was not pressing in order to drive or impel himself, he wasn't pushing, according to my opponent's definition. " Humpty pressed his foot against the wall without realizing the consequences of his actions. It impelled him. It matches the definition. "Newton may disagree with me, but your definition does not. As the ground was not looking to drive or impel, it wasn't pushing. The ground wasn't even pressing with force, it was reacting to the force that had been applied to it. " False. The ground was pressing with force as a reaction to the force that had been applied to it. It pressed by Newton's Third Law to drive or impel Humpty Dumpty away, but the combination of the ground and gravity was too much for poor Humpty, and he shattered. "My opponent claims 'definition abuse' as the reason he didn't respond to my claims. " My opponent did not counter my claim about flying pigs, which was a ground for tossing out his definition. Therefore, his definition is tossed out. "In a 4 round debate, my opponent has had plenty of time (and space) to refute my single contention. " Why bother? I can simply toss out the definition. "The fact that he hasn't even touched it at all means it's a dropped argument, bring it straight across the flow to the CON side. " However, it doesn't have the definition necessary for it to reach. In conclusion, when Humpty Dumpty fell, he hit the ground. By Newton's Third Law of Motion, the ground reacted to this by pushing upwards on Humpty, causing Humpty to shatter. Therefore, Humpty Dumpty was pushed. The resolution is affirmed.
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed

The judges are free to vote whichever way they choose. The definition I offered is fair, and neither abuses the PRO or CON side. It fits the context of this debate, and, through implications, was offered in the first round. That's all I'm saying. I shouldn't have had to source the other debate. I already told people where it was located, and you obviously did some other research (finding definitions, Newton's 3rd Law, etc.) It wouldn't have been to hard. Besides, it could have offered ideas... I didn't necessarily want this debate to follow in the footsteps of the other one, it would have been merely a guide. Your defensive of semantics using robbery as an example is a flawed one. Why would someone ask their neighbor to call the police if something suspicious was happening? Because they don't want something suspicious happening at their house! You can obviously attempt to protect yourself, but obviously it can't work always. [The Wind] My opponent uses 'if', as in "If the wind were strong enough..." He never makes a claim contrary to my position last round, in which the wind couldn't be strong enough to cause Humpty to fall. [Kicking the Wall] Pressing Humpty's foot against the wall would not have been him "pressing against with force in order to drive or impel" as my opponent's definition states. Who would sit on a wall and purposely fall off? As Humpty was not pressing in order to drive or impel himself, he wasn't pushing, according to my opponent's definition. Newton may disagree with me, but your definition does not. As the ground was not looking to drive or impel, it wasn't pushing. The ground wasn't even pressing with force, it was reacting to the force that had been applied to it. My opponent claims 'definition abuse' as the reason he didn't respond to my claims. In a 4 round debate, my opponent has had plenty of time (and space) to refute my single contention. The fact that he hasn't even touched it at all means it's a dropped argument, bring it straight across the flow to the CON side.
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed

While I accept my opponent's definition of 'fall' I reject the definition of 'push'. The definition of 'push' should look more like 'the act of one exerting force against any object, therefore causing it to move. ' While I have no source to document this definition, you (the reader/voter) should prefer my definition for the following reasons: 1) The resolution obviously centers around the fact that Humpty Dumpty didn't fall of his own accord; that perhaps a darker motive was behind Humpty's death, yet was simply written off as an accidental suicide. 2) Common sense: Obviously, wind or a person's foot has enough energy to exert a force, but if you see someone sitting on a wall, and then become dislodged for no apparent reason, you wouldn't say they were pushed off, you would say they fell off. 3) Framer's intent: As the framer, I assure you, the reader/voter, that this debate wasn't intended to fall victim to a mindless semantics trap. My opponent's three resons for Mr. Dumpty's fall thus become irrelevant when applied to my definition 1) The wind was too strong- the debate argues that an outside being pushed him 2) He kicked the wall, and thus fell- self-induced, the debate argues that an outside being pushed him 3) He slid to far forward- self-induced, the debate argues that an outside being pushed him Humpty could have had his great fall without being pushed if it was self induced or caused by a non-being agent (such as the wind). We're looking for a non-accidental cause for Humpty's fall. That said, I will present my case: [Contention 1- The Nursery Rhyme] I posted this rhyme in Round 1, and I look to draw a contention from it. Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall Humpty Dumpty had a great fall All the King's horses and all the King's men Couldn't put Humpty together again Ah, there it is again. Now, when we look to the actual words, it simply mentions that "Humpty Dumpty had a great fall. " Not "Humpty Dumpty was murderously pushed," not "Everyone in the village hated Humpty, so one day, a man, full of rage and prejudice against Humpty ran and pushed him from the wall upon which he sat. " We have absolutely no reason to believe that anyone wanted Humpty dead. No one wished harm upon poor Humpty. And that should be enough to prove my point. So when we look at the debate so far, we see a couple things: 1) The semantics argument destroys the entire purpose of this debate. As we're on a debating website (which, coincidentally has a purpose to spark debate), you, the reader/voter, should reject my opponent's definition of 'push', favoring mine as is encourages debate and thoughtful discussion. 2) From my Contention 1, we see no reason to believe that Humpty was pushed; no reason to believe that anyone wanted to kill Humpty, and thus are forced to conclude that Humpty's death was tragically, an accident induced suicide. (He fell, he didn't jump)
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed

Push - to press against with force in order to drive or impel (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Fall - the act of falling by the force of gravity (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2]) If someone pushes you off of a wall, you could very easily have a great fall. And so, I ask my opponent, why couldn't Humpy Dumpty have been pushed off the wall to have a great fall? In fact, how could he fall without being pushed? Perhaps the wind hit him. In that case, the wind pushed him off the wall. Perhaps he kicked the wall with his heel, and this thrust him forwards. In that case, he pushed himself off the wall. Perhaps he just budged his bottom a little too far forwards. In that case, he still had to push himself forwards. There is no case in which Humpty Dumpty could have had a great fall without being pushed in some way, shape, or form. I await your rebuttals.
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed

As I was browsing through my list of previous debates, I found this one. I had quite a bit of fun debating it, and decided I'd revive it and see if anyone else thought it would be fun. As my opponent, you would be arguing FOR the resolution; that Humpty Dumpty WAS pushed, and didn't simply fall. I will leave the first round decision up to my opponent. They can simply accept, or they can create a case. I have no problem with either. To avoid semantics, Humpty Dumpty is the nursery rhyme character from the following rhyme Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall Humpty Dumpty had a great fall All the King's horses and all the King's men Couldn't put Humpty together again [1] With that, I, in advance, thank my opponent, and hope for a fun, engaging debate! :) --SOURCES-- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The cause of the universe was a sentient/ personal being

"It is a true dichtomy."Bare-assertion fallacy [1]. You made a claim and just assumed its truth without justification. "What else can there be? You gotta give a third."Switching the burden of proof fallacy [2]. Your argument rests on the assumption that it is founded on a true dichotomy, thus you cannot support it by expecting me to prove you wrong. The whole last round was fallacious. Vote Con. [1] http://fallacies.findthedata.org...[2] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...;
The cause of the universe was a sentient/ personal being

Rebutting Pro"There's two causes. Personal and natural. "Pro has not defended this as a true-dichotomy, ans assumes the two are even different. Also his dichotomy it is in no way self-evident, as it may only pertain to our spatio-temporal universe. "The jews could be killed naturally by physical laws or by a will. Hitler had a will to do so. Since no natural laws were in place before the universe it had to be a personal cause. "This assumes your argument founded on a true dichotomy, which you have not supported. "I did give reason. A impersonal cause would just sit there and never act. "I debunked your reason. All one needs to do is posit an impersonal, mechanically operating necessary condition (lacking any determining sufficient conditioning), containing a transition function with an inherit nature restricted to the actualization of symmetry breaking; from atemporal to temporal. This means that there is no merit for the claim that an impersonal cause would just sit there and never act. ConclusionPro failed to meet his burden of proof with regards to his first argument, as he has not shown it a true dichotomy. His second argument fails, because one an easily posit an option which coherently bypasses the supposed requirement for personal causation.
The cause of the universe was a sentient/ personal being

"This is a bare-assertion. My opponent has given no reason why the universe wouldn't exist without a will. " I gave reasons why. Like Hitler. He choose to kill the jews after they attacked Germany. Theres two causes. Personal and natural. The jews could be killed naturally by physical laws or by a will. Hitler had a will to do so. Since no natural laws were in place before the universe it had to be a personal cause. "The power to create could be acted upon, by some non-sentient mechanical function. Once more, no reason has been provided as to why a "will" is required for this, " Natural cause would suppose natural laws. "There is no reason to assume the universe came from nothing, or that a choice was made. These, are once more, just bare-assertions produced by Pro. Also, an impersonal cause can give rise to a temporal effect, if the impersonal cause was just a set of necessary conditions, with an inherit mechanical function to allow a universe to begin to exist spontaneously. As long as there is no state-state/ sufficient causation, then this gets rid of the problem raised by Pro. " I did give reason. A impersonal cause would just sit there and never act.
The cause of the universe was a sentient/ personal being

"This cause must have a will, because it wouldn’t be able to create the universe without one. "This is a bare-assertion. My opponent has given no reason why the universe wouldn't exist without a will. "What this means is that it must have a will so the power to create could be acted on. "The power to create could be acted upon, by some non-sentient mechanical function. Once more, no reason has been provided as to why a "will" is required for this, "It made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces dont make choices) and how can an impersonal cause give rise to a temporal effect? "There is no reason to assume the universe came from nothing, or that a choice was made. These, are once more, just bare-assertions produced by Pro. Also, an impersonal cause can give rise to a temporal effect, if the impersonal cause was just a set of necessary conditions, with an inherit mechanical function to allow a universe to begin to exist spontaneously. As long as there is no state-state/ sufficient causation, then this gets rid of the problem raised by Pro. It's clear Pro did not meet his burden of proof, and I undermined all of this claims.
The cause of the universe was a sentient/ personal being

For the sake of this debate, we will assume that the universe did, in fact, have a cause. The burden of proof will be on my opponent to show why the cause was a sentient/ personal being. Since the burden of proof is on Pro, Pro will make the first argument in this round (the first round is not for acceptance, but for my opponent to present an opening argument). In round 4, my opponent will simply put:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed" This means, that we both give up a round (I'm giving up this round, and Pro is giving up round 4) to ensure that Pro gets the first say, and I get the last say due to the burden of proof. Failure to abide by the rules will result in an automatic forfiet. Good luck!
Physical Education should be prioritized over Intellectual Education for early children.

Hey look, you came back. Rebuttals ============== 1. Childhood Obesity Adults are a huge influence on little kids, they should be the ones influencing their health decisions. I didn't have Health class until 6th grade, but I knew what was good for me and wasn't as early as kindergarten. Why? Because my parents taught me that. Kids can learn all they want about healthy eating and how to stay fit, but the truth is, they are still small kids. They don't have a lot of control over what their parents cook for them, or buy for them. May I remind the audience that they will still be taught PE, but isn't so important, as the parents have a large role on what the kids do early in their childhood. Instead, they should be taught a lot more academics. Why? Because the parents may not be able to teach their kids academic skills as good as teachers. To teach the kids how to eat healthy, the parents just need to expose the kids to healthier foods. Let the teachers do their job of teaching them math. If we would do this, the result would be easier to teach kids and more academically advanced kids in the later grades. Which means they will have a higher probability of getting a good job, which will greatly benefit the kid. They will still be able to be taught PE, and they will still attend Health class in later grades. 2. Statistics Argument still stands 4. Style of PE Learning how to live a healthy life style is usually taught in Health class. Which can be classified as IE. PE (Physical Education) usually teach kids exercises, sports, and keeps kids in shape, which will still happen, even if IE is prioritized over PE. Conclusion ============== In conclusion, IE should continue to be prioritized over PE for the following reasons: IE teaches kids much more valuable skills. IE will help the kid in the long-term. PE for early kids really only teaches sports. Health is included with IE, which talks about the various things about human health, such as the human diet. IE is already prioritized over PE, and it's working fine.
Physical Education should be prioritized over Intellectual Education for early children.

With this, I will explain why you should be voting pro. First, Childhood obesity. The CDC states that Childhood obesity is one of the biggest problems facing children today. This is not simply baby fat that has not been lost, this is obese children who, as stated in my constructive, are more likely to be obese as adults. Obesity has numerous drawbacks, including increased risk of heart disease and cancer. the CDC states the schools are key to stopping childhood obesity. My opponent has tried to state that the current physical education only lets kids play games, but by prioritizing physical education, we can change that. Under the definition provided in my Constructive, Physical education includes things such as learning to eat better and lead a healthy life style. it is important to note that Physical and intellectual education are not mutually exclusive, and pro is not advocating that. Children will still learn how to read, write, and other necessary skills. We will simply be prioritizing physical education in order to promote a healthy life style.
Physical Education should be prioritized over Intellectual Education for early children.

Thanks for not forfeiting the second round, Pro! Opening ============== I believe that Intellectual Education should be prioritized over Physical Education. Having Intellectual Education over Physical Education has more benefits than the alternative. Since IE is already prioritized over PE, Pro will have a lot more BOP than I will. Let us begin! Arguments ================== 1. Long-term gain Kids need to know math, reading, and how do write if they are to get anywhere in life. Sure, sports are a viable option for kids who don't know much but are in tip-top physical condition. But let's face it, how many kids will actually get into the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL? Not a whole lot. But there are lots of job opportunities for people who are smart. Truth is, being intelligent in life has a lot more pros than just being fit. If kids are to get a head start and become smarter, we should teach them math, reading etc. at an early age. 2. Statistics The U.S is not doing very well in academics. America, as of 2012, is at the bottom of the list in source [1] for math, and is fairly low in reading and science as well. We have the resources! We have all the material we need, we just need to teach it to the kids. If we teach kids math, science, and reading at an early age, we can have more intelligent people in the future in the U.S. According to source [2], kids learn faster than adults. If we are to teach kids the building blocks of academics, they would have an easier time learning more advanced concepts later in life. They will have time for PE, but they don't have to worry about being fit for a while. 3. Overweight Children I do agree that overweight children are a problem in the U.S, however, children burn fat faster naturally, since they are growing. For example, a new born infant is chubby and will stay like that for a couple years. But, as time passes they become slender and fit, and then they should start thinking about their weight. We don't need to prioritize PE over IE, we still could use it, but we don't need to prioritize it. 4. Style of PE If the title is confusing, I don't blame you. Most PE classes for early children are just sports and game, they don't benefit the child and it doesn't help them in the long run. Again, how many kids will actually get into the big leagues? PE doesn't help at an early age as they just play basketball, football, or other sports, rather than studying and learning skills that are valuable later and life and will make higher tier academics easier for them. 5. Confusion Once kids age old enough, they will need to know how to take writing tests and know how to study. Tell me, how will kids know that if they are in PE for a long time. They need to know how to behave in these classes and what they need to do. Plus, knowing how to study and behave are valuable skills in 4th grade onward. Sources ================ [1]: http://www.businessinsider.com... [2]: http://edlab.tc.columbia.edu...