BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Teens under 18 should have more legal rights

Teens have very little control over their lives. They can't make healthcare decisions, even when they have the mental ability to decide for themselves. They can't get a job without their parents' permission and permission from the state based on a medical exam, if they leave home without their parents' permission they can be reported as a runaway, returned home against their will and placed in the juvenile system and anything they buy, even with their own money can be taken from them by their parents at any time for any reason. They are forced in to a school system where their significance is diminished and they are forced to become dependent on their parents, who are only required to provide basic needs but make everything else a "privilege." The school system was designed to direct people into 3 different paths: farm; factory; or college. Now that we no longer have the farm and the factory, school prepares us for college. Various features of school were incorporated from the factory including responding to a bell, separate facilities, separate specialized subjects, listening and doing as you are told without question and age segregation that resembles batches of the factory. Why do we learn with people the same age rather than the same interests or abilities? Why is the date of manufacture of the product important? This is why we learn with people the same age. And why should we assume that education should only take place at one stage of a person's life? Education can take place at any stage of a person's life, not just the early years. The system of modern schooling was created outside the public eye and was centered on obedience, not intelligence. The idea of compulsory schooling paid by taxation was a revolutionary idea. At first, people were against the idea, claiming it was indoctrination, or not feasible. Before the industrial revolution, people got married and had full adult rights at puberty. There were claims that the brain is not fully developed till 25. Our brains develop throughout life. Even at 70 your brain is still developing because the synopses in your brain reconnect constantly based on your experience, when your 40, your brain will be different at 70, but it doesn't necessarily make you wiser. Someone who is always angry is different than someone who is always happy. So why do teens have immature brains? It's because we treat them immaturely. Their bodies tell them they are adults so they want to act like adults they want to significantly contribute to society, they want to have sex, have families and leave home but we tell them "you are a child" and we give all the control to the parents. Rights come with responsibilities. Yes they should be tried as adults.
Sasquatch does not exist

My opponent claims I must only convince scientists not skeptics, but scientists are skeptics. My opponent suggests people could chase after a Bigfoot that they find. But that is a very dangerous thing to do as Bigfoot is much stronger than people and chasing after him would put your life in danger if Bigfoot chooses to attack. My opponent says finding hair or skin of Bigfoot could easily be possible, but that would not prove the existence of Bigfoot. DNA of this hair or skin could confirm a new species, but not that Bigfoot exists. Conclusion: Although it has not been definitively proven that Bigfoot exists, there is still a good chance Bigfoot does exist. As I have already explained, creatures believed to be mythical often actually exist. So the idea that Bigfoot exists is reasonable. Also the lack of physical evidence isn't too unlikely as I have explained.
Sasquatch does not exist

My opponent says, "the amount of evidence required to convince skeptics is huge". Who cares what skeptics think? The only people that need to be convinced that Bigfoot exists are the scientists that can determine whether they exist or not. The skeptics decision can then be made on their own by viewing the conclusiveness of the evidence determined by the scientists. The amount of evidence needed to prove a species existence is as small as a strand of hair. Even though hairs are small, and only a small amount are needed, the evidence that can be drawn from them can be huge. Still, no hair has been found to convince scientists or skeptics. I don't know why the FBI's most wanted keeps popping up in this debate. All I want to say to this is that my opponent has misinterpreted me TWICE on this subject. I clearly said, "In America we have the technology, skill, and intelligence to track down 'a' person hiding anywhere in the country", yet somehow my opponent thinks this means that we can track down "anyone" in the country. Even though similar, 'a' and 'anyone' are not identical in meaning. My opponent argues that there is no physical evidence of Bigfoot because an average person would not assume hair or bones that they found would belong to Bigfoot, which makes sense. But imagine this: You are walking in the woods when in the distance you spot a creature that you believe to be Bigfoot. This creature walks out of sight or runs away before you have time to get a picture or take a video. What would you do? Would you go back home and report your eye witness account that has almost zero credibility? Hopefully not, because the smart thing to do would be to go to the location where you spotted the creature, find its footprints, and then try to find either a sample of hair or skin from the area and bring that with you in the hopes that you have managed to find DNA proof of Bigfoot. Heck, you could even chase after it! My point is that finding physical evidence is very possible, but nobody out of the thousands of reported witnesses have done it. Sounds fishy to me. So think about it. Which side of this debate is easier or more likely to believe? The argument that Bigfoot does exist is only held afloat by faulty eye witness accounts, photos, videos, and footprints that can all be very easily faked. There is no real evidence that Bigfoot exists. On the other hand, you have the argument that Bigfoot does not exist. This side of the argument is supported by logic, facts, and science. So which side is easier to believe? Hopefully I don't need to answer that for you, because the conclusion is obvious. Thank you Rainbowdash52 for debating this topic with me.
Sasquatch does not exist

"If thousands of people have seen Bigfoot, then why have not one of these people managed to get solid evidence of their sightings." The answer is because the amount of evidence required to convince skeptics is huge. For my opponent"s rejection to my FBI"s most wanted evidence, I find it unlikely that none of them would choose to hide in the United States. My opponent"s claim we can track down anyone in the U.S. is conveniently unfalsifiable because if we can"t track down someone"s location, then we don"t know where they are, so even if we can"t track down someone in the U.S., my opponent can claim that the reason is because that person is just hiding in a different country, which may or may not be true. As for "Lack of Killings Despite Reward", your source mentions "there is currently a genuine $1,000,000 reward for anyone who can bring back the body of a Sasquatch" but it did not say if the body could be alive or dead. I found a source here [1] that offers a 1 million dollar reward for the body of a living unharmed Bigfoot, which I believe was the source your source was referencing. So "lack of killings despite reward" is misleading. Since capturing a Bigfoot without killing it is extremely hard, it is not a surprise that one has not been captured. As for why no one has killed a Bigfoot, first it is illegal in some places [2], and second, many consider killing a Bigfoot to be unethical. And since the body of a Bigfoot is the only evidence that will convince skeptics, and that it is reasonable that a Bigfoot body has not been captured or killed, it is reasonable that Bigfoot has not yet proven to exist. As for "Bigfoot is a Hoaxer"s Paradise", yes there are hoaxes. But just because there are some hoaxes doesn"t mean they are all hoaxes. For example evidence has been faked to support evolution, but that does not discredit evolution. As for why there is no physical evidence, the average person would not look at hair or bones and think this could be a Bigfoot, but when they see giant footprints they do think of Bigfoot, which is why Bigfoot footprints outnumber the physical evidence for Bigfoot. [1] http://www.nydailynews.com... [2] http://www.omgfacts.com...
Sasquatch does not exist

As for "Bigfoot is too big to go unnoticed", of course he is, that is why there are so many sightings. It is just that no amount of pictures or videos of Bigfoot is enough evidence to convince skeptics because such evidence is easy to fake. Even though night vision goggles can be used to detect Bigfoot, the average person doesn't own night vision goggles. Also most Bigfoot encounters are on accident, not by someone searching for him with advanced technology. My opponent claims "In America we have the technology, skill, and intelligence to track down a person hiding anywhere in the country"" This is not true. There are people we are unable to find for example the FBI top ten most wanted. [4] If we really could track down anyone in the country, we wouldn't have problems finding these people. As for "No Bigfoot fossils exist", that is not a problem because fossils of some animals are rare to find. The first chimpanzee fossils weren't found until 2005, and it was only a few teeth. [1] Also the discovery of a few fossil teeth of an unknown species is not enough proof of Bigfoot, so if Bigfoot had equal fossil evidence as chimpanzees, it would still not be proven to exist. The odds of Bigfoots finding each other to mate is not unlikely because they can use wood knocking to communicate long distances. [2] Even if finding each other to mate was a serious concern for the possibility of Bigfoot, other species such as the panda, have overcome even greater reproduction challenges. "Early in their efforts, scientists working on captive breeding of Pandas realized that there were substantial difficulties in getting the bears to mate naturally. They either lost interest in mating the natural way or simply did not know how. "[3] "A female Panda has a single estrous cycle once a year, in the spring, for 2 to 7 of those days, and she"s only actually fertile for 24 to 36 hours. That is a TINY window of opportunity." [3] "A baby panda is born blind, almost hairless, and only about the size of a stick of butter (or 1/900th the size of its mother). These fragile cubs can easily get sick and die."[3] "Female pandas often give birth to twins, but can only effectively care for a single cub. In the wild, this means that one of the cubs is simply left to die." [3] If pandas can reproduce enough to continue to exist despite these challenges, I am sure Bigfoot can do the same. [1] http://www.nature.com... [2] http://www.bigfoothunting.com... [3] http://www.pandasinternational.org... [4] http://www.fbi.gov...
Sasquatch does not exist

One of the reasons for why Bigfoot could be hard to detect would be because Bigfoot is nocturnal, which some speculate he is [1]. It is harder to find animals that are mainly active during the night. Bigfoot is also smarter than most animals, so it could be able to use its intelligence to hide better. These factors could contribute to its evasiveness, so it may be the case that Bigfoot is harder to find than other animals. My opponent claims "Anyways, with todays technology, it is nearly impossible for a species (Sasquatch) to remain hidden from a highly populated country for so long." As you can see here [3], there are large sections of the United States that are not very populated. A population of Bigfoot could easily live there unnoticed. Although Bob Heironimus admitted to help fake the Patterson film, it has not been proven that that what he admitted is true. "Bob Heironimus claims to have been the figure depicted in the Patterson film, and his allegations are detailed in Long's book. Heironimus was a tall (6' 2), muscular Yakima, Washington, native, age 26, when he says Patterson offered him $1000 to wear an ape suit for a Bigfoot film. Bob Gimlin was on Bob Heironimus' horse, Chico, when the PGF was being filmed. Heironimus is one of numerous people who are claimed to be visible in an unreleased second reel of the film. It is unclear which, if any, of these claims are authentic." [2] My opponent claims most evidences for Bigfoot are later admitted to be hoaxes. Although some are, I doubt most are. I challenge my opponent to give a source supporting his/her claim. Although all footprints, pictures, and videos have the possibility of being faked, that is the reason there is no proof of Bigfoot, because people can't tell the real evidence from the fake evidence. [1] http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.floatingpath.com...
Sasquatch does not exist

It is true that species such as the Okapi, Giant Squid, and Gorilla weren't believed to exist and then turned out to be real. But lets look a litter closer at this fact. The Okapi and Gorilla were believed to be mythical until their discovery in 1901 and 1902. Those discoveries happened over 100 years ago when our scientific and technological abilities were far less capable. The last land animal discovered that was around the size of a gorilla was probably the Giant Panda that was discovered in 1927. Since 1927, all the animals that have been discovered have been either relatively small, microscopic, or aquatic. Your Giant Squid argument is almost irrelevant because the amount of sea creatures discovered in comparison to land animals is very small. Anyways, with todays technology, it is nearly impossible for a species (Sasquatch) to remain hidden from a highly populated country for so long. If Sasquatches really did exist all throughout America (not including Hawaii) there is no way that the only potential evidence that had been found is footprints and blurry videos and pictures. Footprints and pictures are way to easy to fake and are not enough evidence to prove the existence of a species. Most of these footprints, videos, and pictures are later admitted to be hoaxes. The most famous video of Sasquatch is the iconic footage of the creature walking through the woods with big strides filmed by Roger Patterson. This footage was later admitted fake by Bob Heironimus who said he was paid $1,000 to walk in a gorilla costume while filmed. I will cut this round off here and provide more facts in the next round.
Sasquatch does not exist

Since Sasquatch is better known as Bigfoot [3], I will use the term Bigfoot. In the past there have been several animals that were believed to be mythical that turned out to actually exist, including the Okapi (African unicorn), the Giant Squid (Kraken), the Gorilla, and more. [1][2] Since it is often the case that creatures whom many believed to be fictional actually exist, it would be logical for Bigfoot to exist. This in addition to the abundant number of Bigfoot sightings is more than enough for there to be at least a reasonable chance that Bigfoot exists. [1] http://listverse.com... [2] http://www.blastr.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
California Splitting into 6 States should be passed

There is an initiative out for signatures to add "Splitting California into 6 States" on the November, 2014 California Ballot. This initiative should be passed, but is terribly misunderstood. This initiative does nothing more than start a process to see the viability to splitting California into six states. Before California could be split, it will require approval by the California Legislature. A 24 member commission will be set up to nail down the issues in more detail. This would include such things as the education system , water, transportation, and handling of the existing California debt. It will still need to be passed by the Federal Legislators before the actual split. Their are more than enough approvals in the process to stop the action, if needed. Many pundits are calling it a crazy idea, but give no concrete reasons why. I am looking for seriously researched information. Please, no shooting from the hip.
I am the best debater ever.

stfu you cant have spaces in your username, i tried, so best debater ever is the same as BestDebaterEver dimwitNo, best debater ever does not equal BestDebaterEver. k so u agree that i am the best debater ever because u say It is impossible for any one to have that exact name, as there can not be two identical names on DDO (this site).No, you are not the best debater ever since that would mean you are the most adept person at debating, which you are not, nor did I accept that your username is best debater ever. and i told you why best debater ever is the same as BestDebaterEverObviously it is not. BestDebaterEver uses no spaces and B, D, E are capitalized, best debater ever has no capitization and uses no spaces. so i winNo, no you do not. kkkkk u are not the master kage just masterkage but same thing u cant have spaces in ur username so master kage is basically masterkageMy opponent is ignoring my refutation. I am not masterkage, becuase kage means shadow and I am not (a) master shadow. wtf u smoking these are all valid argumentsNo, they are not. What exactly are you smoking? I think the voting is obvious, but I will give reasons on how I obviously won this debate.Conduct: Pro is trolling and told me to stfu and other various insults. Conduct to Con.S/G: Con had much better S/G overall.Arguments: Pro did not make any valid arguments.Sources: Tied. Neither of us used sources.
I am the best debater ever.

stfu you cant have spaces in your username, i tried, so best debater ever is the same as BestDebaterEver dimwitk so u agree that i am the best debater ever because u say It is impossible for any one to have that exact name, as there can not be two identical names on DDO (this site).and i told you why best debater ever is the same as BestDebaterEverso i winkkkkk u are not the master kage just masterkage but same thing u cant have spaces in ur username so master kage is basically masterkagewtf u smoking these are all valid arguments
I am the best debater ever.

the resolution is that i am the best debater everThat is correct. my screen name is best debater everIncorrect. Your screen name is BestDebaterEver.there is no one else with the same nameIt is impossible for any one to have that exact name, as there can not be two identical names on DDO (this site).so im am THE best debater everNo, you are not the best debater ever. Yes, your screen name is BestDebaterEver, but you have not provided any valid arguments on why you are the best debater ever.like how you are THE master kageI am not the master kage. Kage means shadow. I am not a master of shadows.My opponent has failed to provide any valid arguments on how he is the best debater ever. He simpy used a argument of how his fit how he was the best debater ever, which have been refuted.
Conformity is inevitable

Alright to end, I will address the final post of my opponent and then summarize why you will vote CON: "Just because society constantly changes, doesn't mean that people still aren't conforming to another, separate standard. Yes, people ignored the Emancipation Proclamation, showing non-conformity for that change, but that doesn't mean they weren't conforming at all. " Conformity - behavior in accordance with socially accepted conventions or standards This is an agreed upon definition that I presented and is the ONLY CITED definition. This is not talking about a degree of change it is talking about meeting societal standards. When you cross apply my contention stating that people literally cannot conform because it changes infinitely, you see that people are not conforming. “They were conforming to their current social standards, where one of them was slavery. My previous explanation about the Emancipation Proclamation was only to support my statement about how the people never really have to catch up to the changes in society because they themselves create the change; changes in society can only take place if the general population conform to it, and if they don't, it will end up like the Emancipation Proclamation. ” Once again, racism still exists, and people still violate others rights based off race so you see not everyone conforms. “In addition, there are laws and regulations enforcing conformity, and even if one breaks the law, they still have to conform by going to jail, doing community service, or accepting any punishment. If that is not real world to you, then what is? If that is not constant conformity, then what is? ” Once again Law is not a forced factor, it does not guarantee change, look to Nebraska where the death penalty is now abolished but people still kill and are actively trying to reinstitute it. “I directly refuted your statement about the elderly standards being completely different from society by saying: elderly people are still considered apart of society, society does not hold only one standard, the general elderly conform to their own standards in their group (as opposed to a younger social group). ” Once again you must prove that all the elderly are conformed, and they are not, there are elderly people who do not meet societal standards and if they do not then they do not support the resolutions. “Again, the human species has been wired to connect and feel with and for those around us so we can act appropriately by doing what they do, conforming. ” Again you have not proven this thus we cannot assume it. “I thank my opponent for the good debate. I'm a girl just to mention, not a "he". ” I apologize if I have hurt your feelings but I defaulted to he because there is no indication of gender on the profile you have. now this is why you are voting Neg:My opponent has not adressed occams razor, This eliminates my opponents assumptions, thus she has no case. because my opponent has no standing case she will lose her BOP. My points remain standing, she hasnt shown this to be a predictable thing,she hasn't shown real world examples, and she hasn't shown people will ever achive it either.
Conformity is inevitable

Just because society constantly changes, doesn't mean that people still aren't conforming to another, separate standard. Yes, people ignored the Emancipation Proclamation, showing non-conformity for that change, but that doesn't mean they weren't conforming at all. They were conforming to their current social standards, where one of them was slavery. My previous explanation about the Emancipation Proclamation was only to support my statement about how the people never really have to catch up to the changes in society because they themselves create the change; changes in society can only take place if the general population conform to it, and if they don't, it will end up like the Emancipation Proclamation.In addition, there are laws and regulations enforcing conformity, and even if one breaks the law, they still have to conform by going to jail, doing community service, or accepting any punishment. If that is not real world to you, then what is? If that is not constant conformity, then what is?I directly refuted your statement about the elderly standards being completely different from society by saying: elderly people are still considered apart of society, society does not hold only one standard, the general elderly conform to their own standards in their group (as opposed to a younger social group).Again, the human species has been wired to connect and feel with and for those around us so we can act appropriately by doing what they do, conforming.I thank my opponent for the good debate. I'm a girl just to mention, not a "he".