BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Flying Unicorn will win in a fight with a Bear

I will begin the debate by refuting the points made by my opposition. "They fly and have magic and they have bloody horns from stabbing their opponent to death. Bears on the other hand have no magic." A flying unicorns magic isn't exactly useful in the contest of a fight. It would seem that the unicorn's magical abilities are only healing poisons and making water drinkable with its horn (1). These magical abilities would not help the unicorn to win the fight. The flying unicorn's ability to fly is still relevant, but I will explain in my points later why its ability to fly won't help it. "Every time the unicorn goes down for a strike it stabs the bear in one arm." A unicorn horn is not the easiest weapon to use. It is attached to the head and the neck, and the neck is not nearly as maneuverable as an arm. On top of that, the unicorn horn has no edges; that is to say, the horn needs a direct stab to do any damage. As the neck is not as easy to maneuver accurately as an arm, the horn needs a direct stab to do any damage, and the flying unicorn is a very large creature with high momentum but low maneuverablity, the flying unicorn would be unable to hit the slightly more maneuverable bear (this will be explained later). Now, here is why a bear would win in the fight. 1. A bear has better natural weapons. A unicorn only has its horn as a weapon, and this has already been explained to be an ineffective weapon. A bear, however, has claws, sharp teeth, and, on top of that, its natural strength. 2. Bears are crazy good at Kung Fu I would like to direct my opponent's attention to Kung Fu Panda. Apparently, these bears can fight. They can jump around like crazy (which can counter the flying unicorn's ability to fly and allow it to dodge the unicorn's horn) and they can duke out some serious blows (2). Essentially, a bear could straight up knock the unicorn unconcious, which would, effectively, end the fight. I will conclude this by saying that all of Pro's points have been refuted, and all of my arguments still stand as valid. Please vote Pro. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. Kung Fu Panda, 2008
Flying Unicorn will win in a fight with a Bear

Unicorns are just awesome. They fly and have magic and they have bloody horns form stabbing their opponent to death. Bears on the other hand have no magic they are just well bears. But the Unicorn is a majestic creature teasing his opponent to capture him, every time the unicorn goes down for a strike it stabs the bear in one arm. The bear is in pain. The unicorn goes for another attack. This time using the powerful magic. The unicorn left no trace of the bear after it defeated it. The funeral takes place tommarow at 5 pm.
Banning junk and sugary food advertisement in the media and in school

1. Banning Junk Food in School A) Schools make money from vending machines that help fund several projects and clubs. By eliminating this source of income, you'd be taking away from profit that could benefit the kids on a larger scale, including money for things like sports programs which encourage a healthy lifestyle. B) While you can't put a price on a kid's health, kids should be encouraged to learn healthy eating habits at home and learn to make proper healthy decisions. You shouldn't prevent kids who eat junk food sparingly or who are in good health from being treated to snacks in school because of an unhealthy few. C) Kids aren't the only ones who eat junk food via vending machines in schools. The adminstration consists of teachers, staff workers, janitors, secreatries, etc. who might want to enjoy a snack. 2. Banning Junk Food Advertisements in the Media A) This is a blatant infringement of company's rights to advertise any way they see fit. If you'd like to use cigarettes as a precedent (i.e. cigarettes are forced to not market explicitly to a younger group), I disagree with that jurisdiction to begin with so I'd be happy to debate it. B) Lack of advertising = lack of profit = lack of business = lack of jobs = lack of taxes = bad economy in general. Companies should be given the opportunities to flourish and succeed. Advertising is not doing anything explicitly wrong; people are free to make their own decisions as I've said. Moreover, if you stop junk food from being advertised, you could or should potentially outlaw all kinds of advertisements including all food chains (especially fast food which is notably unhealthy), beer commercials, etc. C) Even if consumers eat unhealthy sometimes, it's not indicative that they lead an unhealthy lifestyle. Many people in my family have a sweet tooth and yet their bodies are in great shape.
Stress can have positive effects

Today"s topic is "stress can have a positive effect, " my position is that this is not correct as the negative effects of stress far outweighs any positive. Stress can be defined as a natural human response to pressure when faced with difficult situations. The negative human responses can have a negative impact on our mental, Physical and social wellbeing. Stress can have a negative effect on our mental wellbeing, Dr. Harry Mills from Mental help net, States that stress can lead to depression, Anxiety, Bipolar disorder and personality change. This mental health issue may occur as the stress fails to shut off after a difficult situation has passed. He also said that stress can lead to anger, Frustration, Aggressive feelings and behaviour, Reduced work efficiency and communication problems. Being stressed can affect our ability to think, Which can affect us in school. A research survey has shown 2, 240 students from 40 random colleges, That six in every ten students reported being so stressed that they couldn"t complete their homework. Stress can also make you have insomnia which affects us in our work at school. The National Sleep Foundation reports teens need at least eight hours of sleep to function at peak performance, Yet only about 15 percent of teens get an adequate amount. Stress can affect our ability to socialise. Being stressed in social situations can lead to social anxiety, You may feel stressed or a feeling of discomfort in certain situations. Beyond blue support service stated that social anxiety can lead to intense stress. We may feel anxious about hanging out with our friends as you may feel this certain feeling of being judged all the time. Social phobias can stop us from doing what we enjoy in life. Which in turn leads to further levels of stress. When at school or playing a sport you can feel very anxious, You may not want to get involved in a sport or music event. Research has shown from social anxiety net that some people with social anxiety do very poorly in school and most likely ending up dropping out as they can not bear it. Stress also has a negative impact on our body"s physical function. Dr Timothy J. Legg stated that "stress hormones will weaken your immune system and reduce your body"s response to foreign invaders such as bugs and viruses. " Being stressed all the time can lead us to having high blood pressure, Severe heartburn, Obesity, Diabetes, Low immune system, Heart disease, Loss of brain cells, And loss of memory. By having these things it can affect our performance in sport or at school. By having a low immune system you feel weak, Nauseous and can have cramping, Which can affect the way we perform in playing sports or working at school. Therefore the negative effects of stress far outweighs any possible positive effects. Stress can affect our ways of thinking, How we feel and interact with others. And therefore we need to seek ways to overcome it.
Gay marriage

Okay, seeing that this is an informal debate, I'll be brief in my opening statement.Gay marriage is immoral because it violates natural law, spiritual law, and even survival ethics brought forth by Darwin. No matter what type of worldview you have, gay marriage is harmful to the human race.The way we test this is by asking this question: "If everyone on earth did it, what would happen?" Note: this question is a completely non-biased, objective test. No religion involved here.Let's apply the question to some examples, like hard work. If everyone on earth worked hard at what they did, we would have a generation of go-getter's. People would value work. Of course, there may be some people who work for the wrong reasons, but it is a net benefit. Thus, we can come to the conclusion that hard work is a good thing.Another example would be stealing. If everyone on earth stole, no value would be created: it would just trade hands. No one would value work, no one would want to work, and eventually supplies would run low. No gatherers would mean death for the entire human race. Therefore, we can objectively say that stealing is a bad thing for humanity.I think you can see where I am going with this now, Pro. What happens if everyone on earth were involved in homosexual marriage? Simple: no children. No future, no new generations, nothing. Give us 100 years, and humanity ceases to exist. So, for the same reason hard work is good and stealing is bad, homosexuality is detrimental to humanity. If you want specifics for spiritual law, just ask, but I don't think you'll accept that argument.
Policy Debate as practiced is inherently flawed (pro argues that policy debate is inherently flaw

1) Cards This is only true of novice policy debate. Had you become more experienced in the field you would have realized that cards are simply provided as an initial validation of the claim. Further analysis of the argument such as structure and function in the debate is critical to winning any varsity round as early as the constructive speeches. While I concede that most novice debaters will simply trade cards, Varsity policy debaters simply use them to access the chess game that follows. While immense research and piles of ev is certainly helpful, it is in no way essential to winning a debate at the policy level. 2) Format Again, this is only true of novice policy. Kids who don't know how to pick out critical arguments and filter the debate into effective rebuttals have this happen. The speed of policy is what makes it so valuable. It forces you to think quickly and adjust yourself on the fly. These quick adjustments prove that you have knowledge of the topics and can think critically and strategically in a very short amount of time. I was the 1AR for four years. Believe me, you must have excessive knowledge of the topics in order to be an effective debater. No judge will vote for you if you simply throw out excessive amounts of cards. Your interpretation of policy debate is pretty pedantic. Novice policy has some big flaws like this, but that is only because people with little experience rely on these skills to win.
Policy Debate as practiced is inherently flawed (pro argues that policy debate is inherently flaw

Welcome Ladies and Gentlemen. After starting a policy debate team my last year in High School and having migrated to Parliamentary at college for a year I would like to argue that Policy Debate is inherently flawed. 1. Cards We are empirically shown that policy debates are based on "cards" or typed opinions of others. If arguing that A=B one simply pulls put a piece of paper that claims that A=B. One then summarizes this author's view and voila, A now equals B. This strategy is detrimental to a debater's knowledge. Complex ideas people devote their lives to like Bio Power or the Free Market or Utilitarianism are broken down and glossed over so quickly that neither side knows of the substance behind the argument at hand. This is terrible as unless a judge is well versed in Nicomachean ethics and Marxian economics then there is no entity capable of truly judging the debate. The two teams are also deprived of competing on a merit based field. Whomever has the most cards and best indexing wins. 2. Format Unlike in other formats, policy debate operates under the assumption that unless an argument is addressed then it is conceded and the effects occur. This is not true in all formats. Conceivably, whomever gets more arguments out there than an opponent can respond to should win. We see this in the simple fact that policy debater's speak extremely quickly. They can get more arguments out than in other formats. However, it is hard and even impossible to understand some without a background in speech therapy. Yet again judges and the other team are disenfranchised. Who can judge or learn in a debate if they cannot distinguish the words? A better option is to structure debate around getting one's best ideas out there and if an argument is left unaddressed, as many should be in this case, then nuclear war is not inevitable no matter what. There are many more points to add in coming rounds. I hope this is enough to entice you into voting for me (pro) that policy debate is inherently flawed. Due to the time limit/format and cards debater's do not explain complex issues and they attempt to fit in too many issues. This leads to a state where no one can judge and no one can learn as the issues being debated are not explained or debated. Debate turns into a "whoever has the best cards/speaks the fastest/indexes best" folly. Education and knowledge are not rewarded. Indexing skills are.
Policy Debate as practiced is inherently flawed (pro argues that policy debate is inherently flaw

What's your deal with S&M? haha. Kinda creepy. Anyway, I will admit that there is a difference between policy debate and l-d or this site for that matter. However, the differences don't make one thing better than the other, just different. Policy debate isn't better or worse than any other form of debate, just different. To prove, I will refute and show how most of the disadvantages you point out are actually positives in policy. 1) Again, more policy experience would have shown you that this isn't true in good policy debates. Novices can stomp around and whine about abuse, but rarely win with good judges. This is actually a positive. The time structure of the debate allows us to get to critical issues rather than trudging through 15 min of muck while touching on the real issues. If you fail to answer a critical argument, that just makes you a worse debater. As the 1AR, it was critical for me to pick out which arguments were critical to the debate and make sure that I answered them fully. Not all debates are just weighing which Nuke war is more likely. You would know this if you had spent more time in policy. 2) Again, time limits are a good thing. They encourage you to focus on critical matters rather than whining abuse or wasting everyones time with nonsensical arguments. Time limits make the debate MORE educational. 3) Speed readers make the debate MORE educational. It allows a broader range of topics for the debate. While the everyday person would have a hard time understanding them, other debaters are kind of trained to listen well. So, all of the things you listed are actually GOOD things. While I admit, the depth of the topics cannot be touched, this holds just as true for other forms of debate. It would take extremely lengthy periods focused solely on that issue to get to the heart of it. This impractical and not necessary for this type of debate. Time limits and speed reading allow debaters to touch a broad range of topics and force them to focus on the ciritical elements of the debate. While some who aren't used to it see it as difficult and ridiculous, policy debaters play a different type of game that takes some getting used to.
Policy Debate as practiced is inherently flawed (pro argues that policy debate is inherently flaw

1) Cards I guess your argument is more for the time structure. The speed of the debate allows several arguments to be processed at once. It also greatly adds to your critical thinking skills. Rather than drawn out back and forths, debaters must rely on their actual debate skills. Weighing arguments against each other and filtering the debate to critical points. 2) Format Your argument for the subjective judge isn't true. Good judges won't vote for a team that simply throws out an arg. This is where your position falls apart. Judges CONSTANTLY encourage analysis over simple card overload. Without good analysis faster teams lose. I have spent five years on the policy circuit and have never seen a team whisper arguments to the judge. Teams pick up cards or ask during crs-x if they are unclear. Speed reading is an advantage, but not what comprises policy debate. We don't need subjective judges. Good policy judges look for analysis in the rebuttals and clear concise arguments. Not something merely spat off of a block. While speed reading is a tactic which allows teams to gain an advantage during the constructives, teams need solid critical, debate, and logical skills in order to be successful. Policy debate treats debate like a chess match of sorts. Rather than eloquently explaining a single issue, policy debate engages quick thinking, resource gathering, and logical skills. While I agree, policy doesn't involve the same skills that this site or other forms of debate do, it is still a legitimate form of debate.
is God real

Definitions God: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions (. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...) Real: occurring or existing in actuality (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I will now attempt to prove that God is not real. ================= Contention 1: Omnipotence Omnipotence is not logically possible. Sometimes there are two actions which are contradictory, and it is not logically possible to do both. For example, it is not logically possible for an "omnipotent" being to create a rock so large that even He cannot lift it. ================= Contention 2: Omniscience Omniscience conflicts with the concept of free will. If God knows what you are going to do before you do it, you did not freely choose that course of action; it was predetermined. ================= Contention 3: Occam's Razor By Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is the best. "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity. [1]" God is unnecessary to explain the universe. We have not yet encountered any phenomenon for which God is the simplest explanation. Therefore, we should not jump to the conclusion that God is real. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

ResolutionThe full resolution for this debate is as follows: "In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black. "DefinitionsInherent: existing necessarily as a property of a thing or phenomenon. Advantage: any state, circumstance, or opportunity that is favorable or benifital in achieving a desired end. "The one who plays White" is the player in control of the white pieces (occasionally hereafter referred to simply as "White" while his/her opponent sometimes referred to as "Black"). White is the one who, by standard Chess rules, makes the first move. Any other word not specifically defined will assume its most common dictionary definition for the context of this debate. Debate StructureIn this debate, I will be arguing that making the first move is an action which provides White with an inherent advantage not sufficiently counter-balanced by Black's assets, and so Black must therefore play that much better to achieve a superior position. Whether or not a Chess beginner can realize or utilize White's inherent advantage is irrelevant to this debate. Perfect play, though widely unknown, is assumed. Further rules are as follows:1. The burden of proof will be on me.2. Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.3. Con must use his/her first round for acceptance only. Later rounds are to be used however we see fit.4. 8,000 characters and a 72-hour period are alloted for each round of debate. The voting period will last two weeks.
Females have a harder life than males

She said that these days, men are not obliged to work. Yes, not in your country. The resolution does not mention your country. The resolution does not generalize any culture. Therefore, as I said, the entire world is in this debate, and my opponent has the burden of proof. She has to prove that females have harder lives than males. Notice how the resolution precisely implies that by definition, females have harder lives than males. This is not the case. Neither of the genders have to have harder lives than the opposite gender. It can depends on culture, society, social status, etc. The pain that say, a high school girl might suffer from due to menstruation might be equivalent to the pain a boy has to suffer from because he is being beaten by other students. The chances that a boy gets into a physical fight are greater than the chances that a girl gets into a physical fight. That is due to the more aggressive nature of the male. On top of that, most wars are fought by men, not women. Many men cannot choose but to enter the army and engage in battles. This can result in brutal consequences. Decision-making for abortion usually lies on the side of the female. Although the male can be very disturbed by the fact that his girlfriend or wife chooses to abort an unborn child - his unborn child - he should most probably just live with it. The pain that results from this can be compared to menstruation pains. My opponent has the burden of proof, and I await further arguments. She has to prove that by definition, females have harder lives than males. In fact, she also has to prove that menstruation constitutes a harder life, if she wishes to use that as her main argument. The resolution is negated.
Females have a harder life than males

Women deal with a period every three weeks. . .You are saying that because of men being obligated to work this is not true . . . These days men are NOT obligated to work. They may stay home while the women works . . its perfectly normal. Women are expected to continue to complete tasks, like work and such even when they are in pain such as their menstrual period and also until a certain point in pregnancy which is very tedious.
Females have a harder life than males

"It makes situations even more stressful . . not only do women face the everyday challenges men do but also deal with other things like menstrual period and symptoms on top of it." I have already addressed this. Even if I do agree that menstruation is painful, it says too little or nothing about the hypothesis that women have harder lives than men. Men are expected to work. In many cultures across the world, men are obliged to work while women have the option to do so - not obligation. If we compare this to menstruation, which side bears a greater burden? "Not all men feel this way, I have seen plenty of males helping each other out emotionally. . It is a choice to share or bottle up your emotions. And there are always councilors you can speak to privately if it is viewed as an issue." There are always some sort of exceptions. Pro erroneously mistakes exceptions with general truths. Since my opponent has not made many arguments, I will not come with long rebuttals. It is clear that she did not provide any strong arguments; at least not ones that I could not refute. The resolution goes through a sex-change surgery and evolves to... Females do not necessarily have a harder life than males - And I agree! Thanks.