BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Planes (con) Vs. Trains (pro)

Thank you for hosting this debate. Good luck!"In a train there is nothing known as a seat belt Sherlock."I fail to see how this makes trains better. Seat belts save lives on cars and they could during the rare occurrence of a train crash."There is a bedroom cart, dining cart, spa cart, Gaming cart and so much more to offer."You can play games on many commercial airplanes, as well as eat and sleep. My arguments:Planes are faster than trains. This allows for them to get to places faster. Planes can also travel over oceans to different continents. Trains are land based and cannot travel oceans. Good luck to my opponent.
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

My opponent out of pure rudeness and straight up disrespect, fails to talk about or simply acknowledge 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12. The pinball song from sesame street. This fact is inadmissible and should be marked accordingly. I do however see he possess the ability to learn , and is kind of seeing that not so much the cutest pet, but the bigger and friendlier animals are much more greater to set on fire, and much more memorable and meaningful, dogs are better then cats to set on fire I still remember it like yesterday. 15 to 17 years ago standing in a field in the dark of night feeding grass to a horse with 1 hand while poring gasoline on it with the other. Then. wowww.my 1st ever flaming horse. I stood back and was in ore , this beautiful creature jumping and kicking , flicking flames in every direction. It was so F N cute like. Your "final solution plan", where you go around gathering only 1 certain type of critter, Then transporting them to a place to be burnt in mass numbers, is copied straight of the TV show Sex and the city season 2 episode4 . Yet again this should be marked accordingly. If I was to survey 100 RANDOM , let's say mailman, from different backgrounds and cultures, and put this question to them, I'm 100% sure it would be a overwhelming response of. set the dogs on fire not cats. And we all know mailman and women are among the greatest and most trusted bunch of people in the world. I mean to match the number on the envelope with the box you place it in takes great mind skills. I'm also sure if we asked 100 random cats , if it's better to burn dogs then cats , it would be a total waste of time. they would not answer because they are cats , and cats and dogs can't talk, I get of track a little because I keep thinking about how great that horse was. But just know the bigger better animal is better to set on fire. The horse is better to light up then the ant. The giraffe is better to light up then the mouse. Wich makes The dogs better to set on fire the the cat
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

My opponent has developed an interesting thesis: that setting a dog on fire is better than setting a cat on fire, because dogs are cute and it is more fun to set cute things on fire. This leads to an interesting moral dilemma. Is it better to kill something for your own desire (the desire to destroy cute things), or for the good of mankind (killing all cats)? I think the answer is obviously the latter.My opponent argues that, in a revenge situation, it would be better to set a cat on fire than a dog. I disagree. Dogs are easy targets. They are big, slow, dumb, and easy to confuse, and even if they attack their patterns are predictable. Cats are trickier prey. They flee at the sight of intruders, hide in different places, and stalk their prey carefully. It is far more satisfying to find and set a cat on fire, simply due to their sneakier nature.My opponent next attempts an appeal to authority: he argues he is an expert at killing animals, and that dogs are far better to set on fire. This portion of his argument is disjointed - it appears my opponent has some sort of mental condition. I am concerned for his well-being and the well-being of others, but that is beside the point. He suggests dogs are more annoying, which makes them better to kill. This could be true. But does that mean they are better to set on fire? No. Not the same thing at all. The whimpering of a dog is far less satisfying than the final shreiking of the cat, which makes you realize what a great decision it was to set it on fire. Not to mention, of course, how great for humanity my Final Solution to the Cat Problem is. We are going to kill and cats, and make them pay for it. We will build the biggest, classiest cat burning facilities on earth. I'll be the greatest cat killer God ever made. My opponent? He's a loser. Let him kill his dogs. I'm going to save humanity
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

Thanks also to my opponent T905 , and what a nice rational young man you seem to be. It goes cats then dogs, it's the next step If I opened a shop offering animal torture. Dogs would cost more then cats . The better the animal the better it is to set on fire. Simple as that. I highly doubt any 1 you know would give up a opportunity of setting a panda bear on fire. Let's say for example you lose a debate, and the person ya loss to has a dog and a cat. Of course you setting there dog on fire no question about it. My ex girlfriend once thought she could come get our dog that I payed for. Sure I said ,no problem. I covered the dog in fuel and ran a trail of fuel leading to it from a seat I sat in , she approached the shed so I lit the fuel. Doggy dead . When you set a dog on fire you can really see the horror in its eyes much clearer then a cat . Cats just bolt you don't get to enjoy it. As you can see I can't spell or construct a sentence to good nor can I debate . But I do know about killing animals. Please believe me when I say dogs are heaps better setting on fire. Dogs are always looking at me funny and there so judgemental. Who do they think they are? . Maybe you can forgive a dog for barking at you, I certainly ain't. Just last week I lost $50 bucks on a greyhound it come last. If I was able to get to it I'd remove it's eyes in a instant. I'm pretty good at eye removal , Cat or cop dog, wich 1 are you setting on fire? , cats don't really bother people, if they do ya just kick there stupid heads off. I never had a cat or dog growing up, I did have heaps of puppy's and a few kittens. Why have 1 dog for 15 years when you can have 50 puppy's. I'm always looking for stray animals , to cut . Why set a cat on fire , they make great crab bait, just prick a few holes in them . Cats kill wildlife , good on em, they know how fun it is . I've set more animals on fire then you've had roast dinners. If you find it fun lighting cats up its not long before dogs. Cats are a gateway drug to dogs. You say it's better to light cats on fire then dogs, I say it's better to light them both up, chuck in a few ferrets and a miniature horse. Stupid animals.
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

It is obvious that it is better to light a cat on fire than a dog. Cats are evil, dispicable beings that deserve to be set on fire. Regardless of how you think of dogs, there is little they could do to reach the evil of a cat. Cats, unlike most animals, domesticated themselves - they realized that it is better to leech off the humans than be killed by them. [1] Cats retain their evil instincts, killing wild birds in alarming numbers. In countries like New Zealand, cats are killing off endangered species of birds. [1] Cats carry a parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, that makes you like them - they effectively brainwash you into becoming their servants. The 'affection' they show you? They are just rubbing their scent on you, claiming you as its own. After you die, cats are known to eat you - one poor Romanian woman was eaten entirely by her cat. The reason cats lick themselves? They hate your scent. The reason cats purr? To manipulate you. [2] Experts have concluded that, if cats were big enough, they would kill and eat you. [3] Cats are, by nature, violent sociopaths who exploit others for their own gain. There is no solution to them other than the fire. In contrast, dogs have been scientifically proven to love their owners. Dogs see humans as family - in fact, they rely on us more than even other dogs for things like affection and protection. [4] Dogs need us; cats abuse us. Dogs are the only species on earth that relies on humans for relief when they are nervous, anxious, or fearful. They are the only species that wants eye contact with humans. [4] Dogs are true companions. This is the reason they hate cats - they see how terrible they are and want to warn and protect us from them. To light one on fire would be a sin; to light one on fire rather than a cat would be an executionable offense. In light of the, I propose the following plan: The Final Solution to the Cat Problem. Step 1: Any cats will be brought to special cat dispensation facilities. These facilities will be in Africa; cats will be shipped from all over the world. A global relief fund will reward all people who find and report cats, in proportion to the number they find. Step 2: A small number of cats (5%) will be sent to breeding chambers. The others will be sent to the furnace chambers. After providing offspring, the cats in the breeding chambers will also be sent to the furnace chabers. Step 3: Cats will be burned. Their burning will create both heat and energy, providing clean, renewable energy for millions of Africans. This is the Final Solution to the Cat Problem; cats will serve us, not the other way around. If we want to go further, we could send cats to chambers in Asia, where they are revered for their meat. This would provide relief to starving Asians, especially in North Korea. Opposing this plan means you hate poor Africans and Asians, which means you are a racist. Don't be a racist. Support the final solution to the cat problem. References:1. . http://www.slate.com...;2. . http://elitedaily.com...3. . http://www.today.com...4. . http://barkpost.com...
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

Thanks T905, I wish you well. Sorry for my spelling and structure all. If you think my opponent has set 1 cat on fire vote for him. I doubt he has ever pat a kitty roughly. Have you ever watched the news and heard of a kid been viciously attacked by a domestic cat. But dogs do. Of course it's only the occasional dog . Dogs sometimes have to be put down for there actions cats don't or maybe they might but it's 1 in 1000 And if a animal by law has to be put down, it's better to light a dog that has to be put down on fire then a kids pet kitten, Before voting I suggest you have a look at my opponent's home page and look at his activities , likes, beliefs, and find something that you don't like or approve of and vote with that in mind , please also note my opponent is from North Carolina, and no cats in North Carolina have ever been on fire, as the world seen just weeks ago. The long and short or his arguments are ,he wants to burn your cat , he thinks they are evil vicious killers and they all deserve to die. I don't know about you but that's just cruel . My opponent's final solution plan was copied straight from Hitler he claims . Let's just not go their I say. Your last bit where you say I'm a hologram and if nothing is real what is real. Shows exactly what kind of person you are . One of them how can you prove I exsist I'm a squid. Not real what's real powwwww I might be a donkey you just never know. Yes he is one of these people , look I can't prove your not a squid let's leave it at that. I offered a 1st hand experience on my life as a juvenile. Non sugar coated , I know cats leed to dogs . And to really understand the topic of the debate ITS BETTER TO LIGHT A CAT ON FIRE THEN A DOG. You have to think about it from 2 positions 1 being a sick psychopaths POV, If your lighting animal's on fire and happily doing so . Of course it's better to light a dog on fire then a cat. The other position, A Normal persons Point of view. It's not good to light any animal on fire full stop
It is better to light a cat on fire than a dog.

My opponent has created a case so incomprehensible that I cannot effectively refute half of it. I will refute the second half. My opponent accuses me of stealing my final solution plan from Sex and the City. This is a lie. I stole my plan from Hitler, not from Sex and the City. He also argues mailmen want to light dogs on fire. I doubt this. Mailmen do not exist any more. We abolished mail when the e-mail was invented and exiled all mailment to Venezuela. He also says cats would prefer dogs be set on fire. So? Dogs would prefer cats be set on fire. According to FunTrivia, there are more dogs than cats in world.[1] Ergo, I win!In closing, as I view my opponent's arguments, I reminisce on my youth. Like so many, I found joy in animals. But yet, there was one animal above all that I respected: the lion. Lions are cats. Cats are great, right? No. I saw the Lion King, an excellent documentary, and I was exposed to the dark underbelly of cat culture. Murder, espionage, theft. Cannibalism. Youth unemployment. I thought to myself "I cannot stand for this". This is when I killed my first cat. In the thousands I have killed since, one way has stood above all else: burning.My opponent does not understand this. I know for a fact my opponent is not real. He is a hologram. We are all holograms, in fact. If nothing is real, what is real? The ramblings of a lunatic like my opponent are meaningless. The dark fact is that cats are the epitome of meaninglessless. They have no care for you, no desire for you. They exist to eat, sleep, and then eat you when you die. What better way to strike back against the meaninglessness of the universe then to kill it's manifestation in the cat? My opponent has no answer to this, because there are no answers. So go outside and light a cat on fire. Escape from the meaninglessness of your life for just a brief moment as you hear the squealing of a cat, begging for mercy in a universe that offers none. References:1. http://www.funtrivia.com...;
Which has the Higher Benefit wait to have sex AFTER Marriage or Having Sex BEFORE Marriage

I'm going to answer all your questions in a clear cut and methodical, scientific method. You are basing all your ideas and suggestions based of a Harlequin romance novel and religious undertones. I'm going to set the facts straight in a logical manner without any love connotations, or feelings prejudice. 1. Getting old is natural and it happens to both males and females, the sex desire and drive depreciates and older people do not need to have sex as often as young people. I believe this is the bodies way of saying you are too old to procreate, therefore you don't need the sex drive, just like everything else in your body, it starts to depreciate. Men can still have children at 80, but women have a biological clock, If you can't fulfill your needs to a partner then hell yes they should leave you, why should they suffer because you can't get wood. Although the woman is more emotionally invested in the marriage so she might not. But older women do find younger guys (pool boy). It happens all the time whether you like it or not. Are you living your life or theirs?? Just like if the woman lets say became a vegetable and couldn't have sex, are you going to sit by her ventilator and bedside for the next 30 years while the neighbors 23 year old daughter is saying "Hey there big boy" You might say no here, but we both know you would be waiting for her naked in your bathrobe at the door in seconds. 2. The daughter question, Yes people can leave. Nobody should be in a marriage that they aren't happy in. It doesn't matter if it's sex or any other reason, if you are not happy then you leave. Marriage is a religious based ceremony that brainwashes Catholics into believing that you have to stay forever like their vows state. Well guess what 50% of the public disagrees with you. Not just because of bad sex or lack of sex, marriages do not work for all, just half the people, the other half see it differently. I'm out of space for more!!!
Which has the Higher Benefit wait to have sex AFTER Marriage or Having Sex BEFORE Marriage

I don't think you mean to do this but your argument is going in several different directions but I understand you are just trying to give examples. However your logic if Of...we got to have sex because it's natural can only go so far. You never answered my questions previously so I will post different ones because I can't tell if the other questions too hard to understand seeing how you avoided the questions I put at tbe Very end so they can Stand out. So here some more don't ignore If you like sex what's happens when you are old and you can't get it up anymore and Viagra and others medicines give you bad reaction and don't work. Are you saying its perfectly okay for your wife to leave you because you couldn't fulfill your needs? Should she divorce you? *Hypothetically speaking* (so please don't. Bother telling me you this example doesn't apply to you. Because I'm not referring to you personally) but let's say you had a married daughter caught a disease and she couldn't have sex with her husband based on your logic are you an advocate for her husband leaving her to be alone because she couldn't have sex and divorce her? The examples are endless the point is if you haven't established love FIRST before you got married then good sex or bad sex can't make a stable marriage. marriage requires more than just sex and. Netflix and chill. It requires a love strong enough to endure bad sex or any hardship. Strong to bring two different families together. So if you couldn't have sex God forbid after an accident if love came first then you will be able to endure if such a bizarre situation arises So the idea of testing sex before marriage is pointless because again if it was the best sex ever before marriage who is to say After marriage there won't be an accident diseases or disorder that causes a disruption in all sexual activity. If you can't perform do you permit your wife to leave you? Because she can't get what she wants? That's would be a tragic tale. A Fake love.
Which has the Higher Benefit wait to have sex AFTER Marriage or Having Sex BEFORE Marriage

First of all there is nothing special about two people getting together and humping the crap out of each other. Especially not for guys, guys can have sex and move on, for women it's more emotional. We are mammals and at any time around the world 2 people are doing it like on the discovery channel. People don't stay together out of pity unless they are very religious. All humans have needs and if those needs aren't met they will move on to someone else. What you are describing is an unrealistic fairy tale of romance and love. Real life does not work that way and my proof is the 50% divorce rate. Another perfect example of peoples needs are priests. Priests swear an oath to God and celibacy yet how many have raped alter boys. And why do they do it? Because you can't deny someone a natural instinct to have sex. You can pretend to, with some secret oath but in the end priests break down and end up molesting boys because of their natural instinct, no different then a natural instinct to blush when embarrassed, or fright and flight instinct. These instincts have been in human bodies/brains for thousands of years and you can't replace them with a notion of a love story. Marriage is a ceremony made up by humans to bring a union of man and woman together, this is not a natural act, it's a cultural act. And it doesn't work because as we see, the divorce rate is 50% and it would be higher if it wasn't for religion. There are many people that stay together simply because divorce is frowned upon like in the Catholic religion. It has nothing to do with sex. Humans weren't meant to be together for life. Men are predispositioned to procreate with as many females as possible. It's one thing to say to wait until marriage for sex but how many people are actually doing it. 5% of the population. And that 5% I will venture to guess are either Amish, Mormons or very strict Catholics. Being religious is fine but it will not overrule a human desire for sex.
Which has the Higher Benefit wait to have sex AFTER Marriage or Having Sex BEFORE Marriage

I knew they would come up which is why I said this at the end of round 1 "Question: Will you use a cop-out stating an analogy that you have to test drive variable X to see if it works?" I already knew that is the route everyone takes, test test,....the thing is we are not science projects humans shouldn't be just tested upon, especially without their knowledge and especially not for selfish reasons. Such as If the sex sucks I'm out of the relationship. There so many things wrong with that I don't even know where to began. But before I get into that, let me state my Position a bit more clearly. I am not stating that the actual act of sex will become better because of Marriage itself. My Stance is that, it is more special to reserve yourself for the one you will spend the rest of your life with. If you slept with 10girls and the next girl is just another 11, it doesn't seem Special enough of a gift to give to someone you spending your rest of your days with and yet you give her something you gave every other girl. How special would it be to say that you want to reserve that gift for a later to focus on the love and relationship and character building first. Which brings me to my last point..... Lets say the sex is good BEFORE you get married, but then after you get married....the following things happen, which are real examples that have happened. One... Perhaps the partners get in a car accident, they are scarred down below and they cannot function the same so that GREAT SEX you had before will no longer be the same...will you then dump them for an superficial reason because sex was bad, when it was great beforehand, you decide to throw out all their fun personalities and the treasure moments you spent together to get to know them? People have gotten diseases that that stopped them from having sex physically People have mental disorders or take medication that destroyed sex drives the list goes on....So would you just instantly drop your mate after the fact?
Which has the Higher Benefit wait to have sex AFTER Marriage or Having Sex BEFORE Marriage

Sex is a huge part of a relationship. Human beings are attracted to each other because of pheromones and physical attractions. For millions of years sex is what keeps the human population going on this planet. Now marriage is a religious ceremony that has nothing to do with human survival. Marriage is an agreement between a couple to stay together through thick and thin. Currently our marriage and divorce rate is at 50% as people realize that marriage is not natural. On earth out of the billions of species of animals, insects, reptiles, there are only 8 types of species that stay together after mating. This could be called a marriage. Most animals mate and go their separate way. Humans are a type of animal, we just happen to be on top of the food chain and have the largest most intelligent brains. We have created this notion of marriage. We believe that by not having sex before marriage that it will somehow become more special if we wait until after marriage. The problem with that is, sex is a form of physical release and every human needs it, now a lot of people have their own fantasies and fetishes and a partner might not be into the same things, so when that doesn't happen, usually the male will look for it somewhere else. Therefore there will be adultery which in turn will eventually lead to a divorce. This is why I say try it before marriage, because if it sucks, why would you want to stay with that person for life. You don't go to a car dealership and just buy a car without test driving it. You don't buy a big box of food you never ate without sampling it first. What if the food sucks, now you are stuck with it. And then what will happen, you will discard it. It is the same thing with sex and marriage. What if the sex sucks. Then your marriage is over.