BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dodos are not extinct

The dodo, or Raphus cucullatus if you want to get fancy, is an extinct species of flightless bird that was native to the tiny island nation of Mauritius before it sadly died out. My opponent has awarded me the spelling nad grammar points and this is evident since they have failed to capitalize 'I' and 'I'm'. The dodo became extinct for three reasons. First, before humans arrived on Mauritius – an island in the Indian Ocean where the dodos had evolved – they had no natural predators and as such were easy to hunt by travellers looking for a food supply. Second, the humans who landed on Mauritius brought with them numerous foreign animals not native to the island such as pigs, dogs, and macaques, which are reported to have frequently raided the dodo’s nests to take their young. Finally, as more and more of Mauritius became colonised so that its natural resources could be harvested and exported, habitat loss severely reduced the territory in which dodos could successfully live and reproduce.
Gay marriage should be legal

Gay marriage deals with the same concept as any other marriage, which is that two people love each other so they get married. People try to argue that gay marriage is wrong, my question is how? Because the bible said so? First of all you can't argue that gay marriage is wrong because the bible said so, there are many religions out there and not all of them say that gay marriage is wrong. Second of all why does it even effect you and why are you so worried about what other people are doing? Mind your own business and don't worry about the small things like gay marriage. If two people are happy let them be, they are not interfering you, so why interfere with theirs? And if gay marriage is wrong then so is sex before marriage, and probably more than half of you out there have had sex before marriage. Therefore you have no right to say that homosexuals are disobeying the bible any more than you people who have sex before marriage.
The Best (Insert Object Here) Can not be determined.

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate :) Pro has cited two main contentions in support of his argument -- 1. People Have Different Standards Of Judging Suppose Pro and I were judges of a music competition. I might judge one act better because I preferred their drums, while Pro may have judged another act better because he preferred their guitar. Or, even if Pro and I were both judging on the basis of drums, I might simply prefer one act's drums more than Pro does. While this is all true (that people have different preferences and standards), it does not mean that certain standards of judging cannot be negotiated upon. Even if there are (and probably will be some variations in tastes), at the end of any comparison there can still be a clear winner. 2. You Can Always Find Something With A Better Quality This is another statement that can be true. For instance, while I might proclaim California to be the best state because of it's beautiful weather, one might be able to say that Vermont has even more (albeit different) beauty with the change of their seasons. Still, as I said with the first point, it is possible to create standards and then judge things in comparison to the standards you have agreed to. Here's an example: Suppose I was trying to judge who the best basketball player was in the NBA. I could say that the factors for judging are overall most points, rebounds, assists, blocks and steals. Suppose Kobe had the most points, LeBron had 2nd most, and D-wade had 3rd most. Now supposed LeBron dominated 3 of the other categories and D-wade only dominated 1 of the categories. Overall I'd say that LeBron was the best player in the NBA. Even though there was someone with more (better) of something than LeBron (points) doesn't mean that considering all of the standards and factors that LeBron can't win. (Note: This scenario was a hypothetical :P ). To clarify my case, I'll present another example. Suppose we were trying to judge who the best team was in the 2010 World Cup. Clearly there are going to be various opinions, and each team has their various strong points. However suppose our agreed upon standards were number of games won, number of goals scored, number of successful tackles, best accuracy, etc. If one team clearly dominates many of these categories, then how can you say a "best" cannot be determined when one dominates the agreed upon standards for judging? Another thing - Pro assumes that EVERYONE has to be in agreement about something in order for a "best" to be determined. However, that commits the bare assertion fallacy - assuming something to be true just because it says it's true. Has this notion been defended by my opponent? I'd like for him to expand. That said, I'll send this debate back over to my opponent. I reserve the right to bring up any new arguments I deem necessary in the next around if need-be. Thanks again, and good luck!
The Best (Insert Object Here) Can not be determined.

My title might be confusing, but here I will explain it. The best person/object/place/etc cannot be determined. I wish the con, whomever it may be, good luck in this debate. _______________________________________________________________________ Argument: I always noticed how people judge their opinions, sometimes unsupportable, to say that something is the best of all others. Some examples are: "Bob Marley is the best music artist ever" Well...this could be supported by me..but I never say that he was the best of everyone. "America is the best country in the world". I oppose this one because it is impossible to judge this. Not to start another debate, but you can always find a country with something better than another. I will respond in my supported opinions of my debate opponent is, and I hope this is a good debate- it was just something I thought about, and I think it is a good debate idea.
Should high school and middle school students be able to use phones at passing time and at lunch.

But if students were at their lockers while on their phones it wouldn't be such a problem. They might need to text their family and ask for lunch money or to bring something they need to school. The middle school that I've attended had 5 minutes between classes for passing time. A lot of the time students get bored sitting in their class doing nothing until the bell rings. It takes 1 minute to get things from your locker, and you have to sit in class for 4 minutes doing nothing at all. Why shouldn't students be allowed to text someone for a minute by their locker? As I was saying there would be no problem at all if they were at their lockers and not walking in the hallways while on their phone and they wouldn't be doing any harm.
Should high school and middle school students be able to use phones at passing time and at lunch.

If your middle school experience was anything like mine, you would know that passing periods are when hallways can become one of the most crowded spaces in the school. Giving middle school students the privilege of using phones could be a catastrophe all together. Imagine hordes of teens walking at all different paces, many of them with their faces pointed down, clearly not aware to their surroundings, nor paying attention to where they are heading. Imagine girls suddenly stopping in the middle of the hallway just to take a selfie or show someone how many followers or views they got on a photo. Not only would this lead to potential injury, but many of the students could end up tardy to class. When I was in middle school, three tardies led to an instant detention. and I know many other people who had even stricter rules imposed on them about tardiness. Of course, many of the kids getting tardies might not be responsible, as they are unfortunately stuck behind a mob of texting teens. Since phones are not allowed in class, students will need time to go to their lockers, get their phones, power them on, text someone, power them off, and then go back to their locker and put it back. How can all this be possible in just a short passing period? The reason schools as prestigious as Harvard have prohibited phone use during the brief passing period is that when you give kids more freedom about choices that could lead them to bad consequences, is that most of the time, they will perform the action without even thinking what could go wrong. Surely, a perfectly-functioning system built up after generations of teachers and students, shouldn't have to change such a minor detail like using phones during passing period, especially when it can cause so much trouble.
Should high school and middle school students be able to use phones at passing time and at lunch.

I agree, that not using phones for texting isn't good. But emergencies at school can occur. For example, lock downs, school fires, and violence. From a few years back in 6th grade, my middle school had a fire in the boys bathroom and spread throughout the school. If children didn't have their phone at the time of an emergency how are their parents going to know their in danger. Source : https://answers.yahoo.com... By Tommy V Students also need phones to learn to stay safe from cyber-bullying and other people trying to harm them. http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com... For one, phones would make school a lot funner for children. In the link above Michael Soskil wrote some facts why phones should be allowed at school. He states that phones can be used as an educational learning experience they can learn how to program phones and work with new technology. Parents would also be allowed to keep in touch with children. 48% of parents monitor their childrens current location. Source : http://life.familyeducation.com...
Should high school and middle school students be able to use phones at passing time and at lunch.

Speaking from experience, when individuals receive power, most of them tend to stretch it. The reason schools ban phones during passing period is because the majority of students can't handle that privilege. Texting your parents once a day for lunch money could potentially evolve to stopping by your locker every single passing period and staying there for a while. It is sad that people are so bored in school that they need to be able to text someone and cannot wait util school is over to take care of such trivial things. Kids who go to school should go there to learn, not to spend every minute of class anticipating when they can leave and check their Instagram. There are about 57,000,000 kids in the world who can't go to school because there isn't any to go to.(1) Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk... Of course, one could make the argument: why aren't kids allowed to use phones during lunch. From a parent's point of view, lunch is the only period in the school that gives kids the time to socialize. Eliminating that face-to-face time with other kids is a parent's nightmare because that just shows the lack of interest teens have in other human beings, and how they would prefer texting someone rather than talking to them. According to NY times, 1 in 3 texters would rather text than talk. Source: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com... In conclusion, texting is not bad, but it can corrupt a place of learning and distract people from true purpose of going to school: to learn.
silence is golden (the way it should be debated)

I apologize to everybody who read this, and also to my patient opponent knick-knack, who I practically begged to accept the last one. I'm going to give my real arguments on this... But will still let my opponent start, but before he does, I want to define a few things.... Silence = quiet Golden = amazing So the basic idea is that silence is amazing. I will state the exact topic again Silence Is Golden. Good luck neg.
silence is golden (the way it should be debated)

This topic is built around silence not around human communication, which has sadly been the debate thus far. which may be my fault. .. My contention still remains -While in silence there is little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society. Yes I do understand the resolution but my contention is still the same. My opponent agrees with my definition of silence meaning the absence of any sound, so the feeling of silence does not and will never exist. (there is no difference between complete silence and silence) While in silence even if it is brief or momentary. There would be no communication between human beings, therefore no development of society for that period of time, however long. Now for my opponents case. All of the examples used by the PRO side relate to speaking towards another human. This has nothing to do with silence because regardless if there is speaking there is still no silence. So in the end I would like to agree that if you are asked for top secret information by a friend it would be best to keep your mouth shut. But sadly sometimes there are morons that will get us all killed someday. Silence is not golden as I have rightfully proven. Please vote CON. Thank you.
silence is golden (the way it should be debated)

I am sorry for misunderstanding the topic. My opponent has not yet constructed a case as to why Silence is Golden. All he has said is- "Just being able to have everything be quiet, for even one minute, would be the most golden, the most amazing thing ever". My contention still is -While in silence there is little human communication, therefore, there is little progression of society Also there would be no transferring of knowledge, so no education and learning. There would be no science, or mathematics, or development of government. For my opponent, not everybody knows sign language, so therefore, little to no communication. Also not everybody in the world has technology such as phones or the Internet. So these people would not be able to receive information, or be capable of becoming a progressive society. And there is never a true silence (absence of sound), so the feeling of being in silence does not exist and has never existed. Unless, the person was deaf. I will wait for my opponent to construct a case in the last round so that I am able to announce a rebuttal. Vote Con. Now to Coroner.
silence is golden (the way it should be debated)

"I am assuming that my opponent means that if there was silence all of the time, then it would be amazing" as for that statement, the assumption would be incorrect. The meaning is not silence all the time, otherwise the topic would be, "constant silence is golden" Although, even pretending that the topic was what my opponent assumed, his only point is that there wouldn't be any progression in society, which is false. There are quite a few different forms of communication, one of which is sign language. Sign language could easily be used in the case that everyone always had to be silent. Another form of communication is text messaging/IMing/e-mailing. People use these forms of communication constantly. Most teenagers use these forms of communication a lot more than even talking. Although, that is only if what my opponent assumed was true, which it was not true. As for the topic, silence is golden. Just being able to have everything be quiet, for even one minute, would be the most golden, the most amazing thing ever. Imagine the feeling, just to relax in the temporary silence. Thankyou
Vi_Veri is hotter than theLwerd.

"Second, allow me to clarify the PRO's burden today. Because sexual attractiveness is our standard for the round, my opponent must prove to you, beyond his personal opinion, that the user Vi_Veri is indeed more sexually attractive than theLwerd; this means that, because the actual claim is made, there must be some hard evidence proving that Vi_Veri undoubtedly IS the more attractive of the two, not simply that my opponent BELIEVES her to be more attractive." This is just not true. What is the essence of a debate? The exchanging, and the confrontation, of differing ideology, and the quest for overall understanding that ultimately results from the debate. At the deepest topics, of course, the controversiality of the debate which promotes this strong confrontation also hinders and transcends the simple concept of "Prove it" or having to unconditionally prove something in order to make a point. In a true debate, you don't necessarily need to definitively prove yourself right; you just need to provide a reasonable rationale which backs up your resolution. "that it depends on one's perspective" This undermines the underlying spirit in debate. To argue in favor of that which cannot be proven. "it is possibly hurtful to claim one as being 'hotter' than the other" Irrelevant. Sorry, I tried to keep the responding to that part of your argument to a minimum. Hopefully you won't mind what I've done. Reasons why I believe the resolution is true: Vi_Veri is 20 years old. theLwerd is 22 years old. Because theLwerd can legally drink alcohol, chances are that she has had more, and thus, that she's probably more messed up, visually, from it. Judging from theLwerd's arm in her profile picture, she's probably a bit fatter than Vi_Veri. Maybe this is better; thick chicks are awesome, but overall, most guys prefer slimmer girls. Vi_Veri has dark hair. I think dark hair is, in general, more interesting than blond hair. It's different. When most girls are blonde in the U.S., a dark haired girl can stand out much more, and be much more interesting, and therefore more sexually attractive. theLwerd is much paler than Vi_Veri. Again, this point is the same as my above one. Pale skin is much too common here. Also, clearly, tanned skin is more attractive, evidenced by huge ratio of girls who try to tan themselves versus those who bleach their skin (does that even happen? I hope not; I love that brown sugar.) I have affirmed this resolution. I await my opponents refutations.
Vi_Veri is hotter than theLwerd.

I'll go ahead and agree to start actual debate in Round 2, but I would like to take this 'freebie' post to make an opening statement, and a couple of clarifications. First, I'd like to agree that the standard of 'hotness', so to speak, will be sexual attractiveness. Second, allow me to clarify the PRO's burden today. Because sexual attractiveness is our standard for the round, my opponent must prove to you, beyond his personal opinion, that the user Vi_Veri is indeed more sexually attractive than theLwerd; this means that, because the actual claim is made, there must be some hard evidence proving that Vi_Veri undoubtedly IS the more attractive of the two, not simply that my opponent BELIEVES her to be more attractive. Third, and finally, I would like to clarify my own burden for today: though I disagree with the resolution at hand, I do not have to prove that theLwerd is the 'hotter' of the two; I must simply prove that Vi_Veri is not; while trying to prove that theLwerd is more attractive is a valid position, examples of other acceptable positions would be to say that they are equally attractive, or that it depends on one's perspective, or even to argue against the resolution itself, and say that it is possibly hurtful to claim one as being 'hotter' than the other, or to argue against the fact that the resolution can never be proven universally true, and to further that by saying that my opponent is trying to set some kind of trap by allowing his personal opinions of Vi_Veri to be counted as factual evidence. I would like to ask my opponent, in his first argument, to only build his case; while I have presented a few of the many possible positions that I could take, I would merely ask my opponent to accept these all as legitimate possibilities for argumentation, rather than trying to refute them; because obviously, it is quite unfair to allow the PRO to pre-empt many of the possible arguments I can make; so, to the PRO, personally, you may look over these possible methods of argumentation, and prepare for them, but please do not openly refute them in your first post. Thank you, and I look forward to what should be a.
Vi_Veri is hotter than theLwerd.

It would appear that my opponent has forfeited this round. As opposed to just re-iterating all of the extensions and refutations in my last post, I'll just tell you to flow everything through; I'd like you, however, to especially note the arguments discussing how his perspective can't universalize the resolution, and how I've turned a lot of his own logic and personal perspective against him, in addition to the fact that I've turned every single other argument against him, as well; so, once again, my opponent isn't universalizing the claim, thus he isn't meeting his burden of proof/universality, thus he can't win the round, thus you have to vote CON. Hopefully, my opponent doesn't forfeit Round 4, as well. I look forward to his response.
Animal Testing for Cosmetics

Human lives are rarely threatened by final cosmetic products, unless an individual is severely allergic to a topical ingredient in the product, in which case they should avoid it. There is no point to testing products on animals if there is not a possible major risk to the consumer. I am not suggesting the notion that humans stop using cosmetics as a whole. I am arguing that using animals to test cosmetic products is unnecessary. The importance of cosmetics to ones self-esteem on the surface has little relevance to the notion of animal testing, I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on why this is related to animal testing for cosmetics and define your terms. I will not debate whether the animals are alive or not. Also, I fail to see the direct relevance this has to cosmetic testing on animals, please relate this back to the debate topic.