BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Do cats have the same feelings as people

I firmly believe cats have feelings. For example my cat purrs when happy, flinches when scared, and runs away when he is hurt. Cats share many of the same neurotransmitters and proteins and many of the same brain structures*. Why would we assume that these are used differently between cats and people? *Brain structures and neurotransmitters regulating aggression in cats: implications for human aggression. Gregg TR, Siegel A. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2001 Jan;25(1):91-140.
Do cats have the same feelings as people

What is the function of a protein or a neurotransmitter? Volumes of research have been conducted looking into questions revolving around this. It is known that a neurotransmitter can bind to certain neuronal receptors, and that this binding then causes cellular changes including nerve transmission. What is a feeling? What is consciousness? The great Crick himself has pondered these questions, which to this day remain unanswered.
People should be required to have a "Liquor License" to purchase alcohol.

Many thanks for the great debate.SUMMARYIn his argument, Pro has successfully highlighted many alcohol associated problems. These problems aren't something I refute however. We all are aware of their existence. Simply stating them does nothing to support the validity of a 'liquor license'. Why not? Well, for the simple fact that Pro can provide no evidence or proof that a liquor license would do anything to alleviate any of the problems he has listed, and thus it worth the expenditure. In brief, I do not feel that Pro has dealt satisfactoraly with the following points:1. That a liquor license will alleviate current problems.2. That a liquor license will not actually make criminals of more people.3. That a liquor license would never be able to stop someones first offence. And if they have already committed a serious offence, then I somehow doubt they would mind breaking the law over acquisition of alcohol itself. I do not think it is too early to raise ideas of cost. We have to know something is worth the money when considering if it is justifiable.To conclude, while Pro makes valid arguments for the dangers and crimes associated with alcohol which we can both agree upon, he fails to successfully defend how a liquor license would actually curb any of this and thus be a valid program. I believe that in my arguments I have shown the shortcomings of said program, and even shown how it could potentially have a negative effect on society.
People should be required to have a "Liquor License" to purchase alcohol.

While my opponent professes that yes, his plan (if not scheme) would indeed be worth the huge monetary cost that it would inevitably induce, he cannot actually provide any proof whatsoever that his plan would reduce alcohol related arrests reduce achohol related deaths reduce alcohol related crime in general While it is easy to cite current statistics, it is more difficult to provide proof that they would be signficantly changed with the introduction of a 'liqueor license'. I feel an issue that my opponent has not successfully addressed is that introducing the liqueor license could potentially incriminate many more people and go as far as to cause more crime rather than reduce it. While drink-drive caused deaths and alcohol related crime is something we can all come together to condemn, having an emotive knee-jerk reaction to it is not rational. My opponent raises the issue of whether 21 years of age somehow makes us responsible and ready to purchase alcohol. He insinuites that a better judging of the responsibility of an individual would be through attending this course he ponders upon.Yet I have several issues about this 'course'. With so little detail it is hard to criticise it effectively, but I can go so far as imagining that it woulda) not be very difficult to passb) i imagine many wouldn't take it seriouslyc) my opponent himself can have no idea of how effective it would be and therefore it it is a waste of taxpayers money. I also believe my opponent has underestimated costs. For a meaningful course that actually makes a difference to people and judges their 'responsibility', this is going to be more than a couple of hours in a community centre. Imagine the amount of people who would want to take the course immediately upon it being brought in. Absolutely millions of 300million population. Without being able to say how effective the new measure would be, you are unable to say that it would be worth the money. I look forward to my opponents closing statement
People should be required to have a "Liquor License" to purchase alcohol.

Thanks for your opening rebuttal - you brought up some very important issues that I'd like to address. However, the fact that you referred to the 'plan' as a 'scheme' in your opening sentence did give me a 'cause for pause'. By definition, the term 'scheme' is, "To make plans, esp. in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong".[1] How ever bold and progressive the plan is, it's definitely not devious! If some form of this idea could come into reality, literally millions of lives would be saved, or changed for the better. Now, to address your issues: 1: COST - Yes. There are costs - anything of value costs something. What's the value of saving the lives of millions of innocent, responsible, people? As to who pays for it specifically, that's really for another debate, but I'm sure it would end up being some 'mix' of fees, taxes, etc. The real question in this regard should be, "Is it worth the cost?". My answer is easily, "YES!, YES!, YES!". 2:CRIME STATISTICS - "From 2000 to 2008, there were on average about 1,396,888 arrests made per year for driving under the influence (DUI) in the United States. This is based on Uniform Crime Reports from 2000 to 2008 of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation".[2] Wow...really? 1.4 million arrests a year!?!? Do I really need to break the numbers down for you? These are JUST DUI arrests. It's mind-numbing to consider how many innocent lives are taken, or ruined, by alcohol. Yes, most people drink responsibly. This plan would HELP protect them from the millions of people that don't. Is it perfect? Of course not! Will it save millions of lives? Over the years, it will save many millions of lives. 3:GOVERNMENT CONTROL GONE MAD - As a Libertarian, I'm particularly sensitive to this issue. I feel the same way as my opponent does in that the current alcohol and drug laws are ineffectual. This plan could be seen as the first step in a complete overhaul in governments view of 'intoxicating' substances, in general. I believe that RESPONSIBLE adults should have the "right" to do as they please, as long as it doesn't, unknowingly, risk hurting someone else. The 'key' term there is "responsible". Does turning 21 years old make us "responsible"? Should we even have to be "responsible" to drink? Or, should we just have to be at least "21 years old"? So, one might ask..."should a person have to DO something, besides aging, to indicate to society that they are a 'Responsible Adult'?". My answer is, "Yes, they should". I know that I'd feel a lot safer, and no matter the costs, we'd all be richer in the long run. [1] http://www.google.com...|en&q=scheme [2] http://www.numberof.net... http://www.marininstitute.org...
People should be required to have a "Liquor License" to purchase alcohol.

Well done for a solid round.I'd first like to point out some simple issues with a 'liqueor license' scheme.1:COSTYou are basically proposing an ID card scheme that proves you have been to a course. Both the course and the production of ID cards would inevitably cost money, and for the scheme to be nationwide, you are talking an absolutely huge amount. Who do you expect to pay for this? Would it be down to the individual to pay for his course and license? Or would it come from taxpayers money (many of whom will not be drinkers). 2:CRIME STATISTICSIt is true that alcohol related crime is high. But I want you to consider two things1) The vast majority of people that consume alcohol consume it responsibly and are not involved in crime2) I put forward that implementing an alcohol license would not stop alcohol related crime. It may actually cause an increase in crime, as people are forced to break the law in order to obtain alcohol. Just like under prohibition, you would be forcing thousands more citizens to becoming 'petty criminals', and this is an observable downhill slope. 3:GOVERNMENT CONTROL GONE MADTo design a course and make license cards for alcohol purchasing rights the norm, you would be placing it in the same category as gun ownership. This is ridiculous. The gun is by nature a violent material. Alcohol is by no means necessarily so. Already the US has some of the strictest laws in the world about alcohol, and extending them further would simply be the government becoming control freaks. I'm going use the example of drugs to defend alcohol. Drugs laws are extremely strict as we all know. But drug related crime is incredibly high. While I am not suggesting the legalization of drugs at all, I am merely suggesting that making alcohol laws stricter will not mean a reduction in crime levels. All it will mean is increased spending on an un-necessary program.If you are so genuinely concerned about alcohol related crime, you should instead be arguing for its blanket ban rather than simply an ID card scheme through which you can provide little or in fact no proof that crime statistics will go down.
People should be required to have a "Liquor License" to purchase alcohol.

This is a topic that I don't hear discussed very often. It basically is a pretty simple argument and it comes down to whether or not purchasing alcohol should be a "right", as it is now...or a "privilege", as I will argue that it should be. I'm a Libertarian by nature, I believe that adults should have the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't endanger others. However, I'm also a pragmatist. I believe that there should be rules and laws that make sense. The rule that says anyone 21 years or older has the "right" to purchase alcohol, without exception, makes NO sense. The fact that alcohol-related offenses are directly responsible for 10's of thousands of deaths annually is really undebatable. Not only are there over 11,000 traffic deaths attributable to impaired driving, but there are countless 1,000's of other domestic violence, assaults, murders, and other various crimes committed while the perpetrator is intoxicated. Something practical HAS to be done about it. It's my opinion that, like driving a car, purchasing (or consuming) alcohol should be a "Privilege". It should be a privilege because the misuse of alcohol directly affects, and threatens, the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of other citizens. Alcohol should only be consumed by individuals who are responsible enough not to endanger themselves, or others, while under it's influence. If it is proven that the individual will endanger themselves, or others, while under the influence - the privilege of consuming alcohol should be taken away from the individual...as a matter of Public Safety. Implementing a national "Liquor License" program to protect the public from repeat alcohol-related offenders is the most practical, pragmatic, and efficient method of managing the unfortunate, and horrifying, realities of alcohol abuse. http://www.drinkinganddriving.org...
People should be required to have a "Liquor License" to purchase alcohol.

This will be a three round debate: For sake of this debate, the term "Liquor License" refers to a nationally recognized, regulated, and enforced 'alcohol purchasing card' which would be required to purchase alcohol of any nature. The card would be scanned, like an ATM card, with each purchase. To earn this card, one would have to pass an "alcohol awareness" program and be over 21 years old. Any alcohol-related legal offenses would result in the suspension, or cancellation, of the privilege of purchasing alcohol.
Black People Must Pay More Taxes

They have "higher crime rates STATISTICALLY," you say? Well, anything can be proven or DISPROVEN through the use of statistics. As you can easily see from the handy dandy chart down below, WHITE PEOPLE committed 63.7% of all crime in the year 2017. Black people only committed 13.1% so stuff those fake statistics you made up down your face. They aren't statistics, they're just opinion. WRONG opinion. https://infogram.com... Black criminals atone for their crimes by spending time in jail, as all criminals do, regardless of race. Black criminals and all criminals can atone for their crimes, but they alone are responsible for what they do. Their race is not responsible for what they do. If your system was played out, then white people would have to pay more taxes too, just because guilty white people commit crimes all the time. That would mean equality. Still, it would not be just to charge people for their appearances. You should die, you white supremacist pig. Go burn with Hitler in Hell. I'll snap up that next debate. Toss it at me. I'll wait. Judges, vote wisely.
Black People Must Pay More Taxes

I don't care. Black people statistically have higher crime rates than non-blacks. Think about it this way: the actual black criminals cannot atone for their criminal behavior, but somebody has to somehow atone for them; thus, their fellow black people have to pay more taxes. Don't you think that this is fair? Regardless of what you think for it, I think I am being an effective social reformer. And also, now let me hear your argument: Our next argument (#10) should be: Russian people are supreme.
Black People Must Pay More Taxes

They're goading me on, in the comment section, to rebut you, and really debate, but it's almost impossible, because I can't rebut you. Rebutting you is worthless, a waste of my time. What you say is gibberish. Your arguments alone speak for me. They're such tripe that I have to win by default, even if I don't say anything. Still, I've got to say something. So here we go- I'll do your last two rounds, then I'll make a big old finish in round 4. OK? I'm tired of this, and so is everybody else. Black people do not cause any crimes or violence if they're nice. White people commit crimes too. The color of somebody's skin does not affect how inclined they are toward violence, but their upbringing and influences growing up as a child do. White people, for instance, have done bad things. it was a white guy who did 9/11. A white guy crashed into that lady in Charlottesville. White people imprisoned slaves for decades without their consent. That's a crime against humanity. Hitler was white. People should not pay taxes just because they belong to a race that has committed a crime, because they, as individuals, have not committed a crime. Every race has engaged in some criminal activity. But every member of that race should not be held accountable for the actions of only one individual. That is a grave miscarriage of justice. They're poorer than many white people- we should pay taxes to help them out. Their dark skin does not absorb any sunlight, and even if it did, you should be happy about that, because that would REDUCE global warming. See, there's a flaw in your argument right there, even though it's based on a made up fact, it's still a flaw. They don't hinder the development of solar technology even a teensy bit. The sun is an eternal lightball, and it will keep shining bright for four billion more years, and we can harness that energy and reduce global warming. Don't hold black people accountable, though. Black people do not capture enough sunlight for an apocalypse. that is utter crazy talk, in every sense of the word. They do not hinder photosynthesis- and they only absorb about 0.000000000000000000001% more sunlight than white people- their skin is more reflective to the sun, actually, they don't absorb it, it bounces off them. That's why they're better at handling heat. It's simple science, sir. We are not going to destroy the Indians, or throw them all into prison. You are mentally insane. Eat garbage. I await your next argument. (Judges, I am fully aware I am using poor conduct. I can do nothing else)
Black People Must Pay More Taxes

frankfurter50, my friend, you have barely said anything during this debate. Well, you are paving the way for me to win. I surely believe black people must pay more taxes. Similarly, in my vision of the ideal world... There is a limit of one black family per neighborhood. The 7 Wonders of the ancient world are all reconstructed (excluding the Pyramids and the Statue of Zeus). Having sex is illegal. Depression is illegal. Disney is banned. Indian people, as well as homosexuals and the disables, don't exist anymore. Russian people are privileged and tax exempt. Polar bears are allowed to freely roam the streets, attacking anybody they want. The world is back to a complete Ice age, making living conditions ideal for polar bears. Black people and Hispanics pay 10% more income taxes than white people. There are no bullies in schools. Everybody worships Vladmir Putin as God and bows down to polar bears.
Black People Must Pay More Taxes

Black people have dark skin, which absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total energy white people can harvest. With no sunlight, trees will cease to function and produce oxygen and plants will stop producing food for herbivores, then carnivores can't eat herbivores because they are all dead, and then we humans have no meat or plants to eat, so we will all die, all because black people absorb too much sunshine. Sure, the Indians will die out, but so will the supreme Russians. The best way to get rid of South Asians is to cull them or throw them all into prison. That curbs overpopulation and global warming. Also, black people cause too much violence and crime in the world. The best way to atone for it is to have them pay more taxes, up to 10% more. With the extra black tax money, we will compensate those who were victimized by the blacks, and also use the money to research and build efficient ways to collect and use sunlight to the max, so we will still have food and energy. Furthermore, I'm starting to realize that there should be an extra tax for interracial families (5% more) and for bl
Black People Must Pay More Taxes

I believe black people must pay more taxes, because they cause too much violence and inflict too much trouble in today's society. As atonement for the crimes their fellow blacks have committed, they should pay up to 10% more taxes than whites do. Also, their dark skin absorbs too much sunlight, reducing the total amount of energy non-black people can harvest. So based on this logic, Hispanics and Indians need to pay relatively more taxes as well. Great. Now let's debate. Round 9 out of 100. Let's go!
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger is used always in a retaliatory response but it is most definitely the case that it is much easier to exclude these forces than trying to govern something that clouds judgement. Having a good moral temperament does not prevent anger taking control for you are just mentioning reasoning that is only included something one has experienced before. Reasoning within itself entrusted with control is only powerful for as long it remains from external impulses such as anger. ITS POSSIBLE THAT one can try to hold anger but one can only see the world "HOLD" there. There is no proper control over unless it is a program in a computer and even that can be compromised, so imagine a person who is experiencing different emotions on top of the anger. The soldier would be deemed IRRELEVANT if he did devoid himself of all emotions but he is there for his duty and he knows what that entails. There will be wins and losses and those are the objects that are out of his control. His duty is only that, a task. Once he let's anger take hold of him and entrust it with him to guide him to victory would be foolish. Anger is only a mirage of a thought to be emotion that gives us the mindset that we have power but takes us down with a force that can not be reversed. Once anger has taken us off course the return to safety is difficult and one that could have been avoided altogether if it was cut off when the impulse was felt in the beginning.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger can always be a retaliatory response. You claim that anger brings violence, yes maybe in the examples given within the stoic readings, but what is to look at are the other applications of anger. We can be angered at someone else's perseverance over ourselves, yet we do not respond with violence but instead we respond by doing better than our opposing force. ITS POSSIBLE THAT by holding a mean of anger in which one lives with good temperament they can properly justify and call that of other standings unjust. By being in a middle state or "middle domain" of justice as you said, we allow ourselves to act accordingly and punish as it should be. As to addressing your soldier comment, it would deem the soldier IRRELEVANT if he were to evacuate himself of all emotion, let alone anger. Anger is a fuel, the Gatorade of the soul if you will. One will fight for his country due to anger. If you attempt to say that one will fight because of his duty, i say this, would the soldier not be angered if he could not fulfill his duty? Again, we come full circle to the basis of the virtue of anger (are we going in circles????), anger inspires and motivates those of the just to condemn the unjust. Whether it be a soldier fighting to save his land or a mother fighting for her child who has been discriminated against.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT anger will not be a destructive force but a fact is that just because it is within every human once they are born a restraint with good temperament will not assure that one knows what their actions will be due to the circumstances. A morally unjust act is of one thing but violence is not that answer to respond with just because someone wants to seek retribution does not mean that he is justified to carry it out for every situation has different variables. Virtue has no vice for anger since it suffices for itself so the use of anger is IRRELEVANT. If we reserve the middle domain of justice is that a positive thing? To take courage in itself and to have it stripped away slightly does not better it. So that means ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT having more anger would prove to be a positive thing. As Seneca stated "There is no good that becomes bad by increment". If anger would be a good thing then there would be no need for this debate so the fact at hand is it would be along with a moral sense of goodness. Aristotle states that some emotions are best used as arms but these same emotions are the ones that possess a solider. This would render him useless.
Anger Can Be Good Moral Motivation

ITS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE that anger can and will be a destructive force. As said by Aristotle himself, there are fine lines between being excessive and being deficient. Anger is a virtue in which every human is born with. But, by practicing the virtue of anger, one can abstain from destroying it by reaching a level of good temperament. The point that it is your duty to act on behalf of a hurt loved one is IRRELEVANT, what IS relevant is that that anger is an outlet in which you are able to combat the morally unjust. ITS POSSIBLE that anger can promote the careful planning and strategy that is needed in order to avenge a fallen or loved one, as well as seek justice when it is necessary. By tapping into the virtue known as anger when it has been properly balanced and trained, one can use the ability to anger himself and bolster a response that will work agains the forces of the morally unjust. This in fact is why anger is morally good.