BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Dark chocolate makes your boobs firm

I would like to observe that you, as pro have the burden of proof. By simply refuting your arguments, I have won this debate. Your argument revolves around the fact that chocolate in general makes you lose weight. According to sources, chocolate can make you lose weight, but only while eaten in small quantities (1). However, when eaten in larger quantities, these effects are reversed (1). So, by even eating a bar of chocolate a day, the weight loss effects are lost. So, these benefits cannot be weighed for those who eat considerable amounts of chocolate. Furthermore, these benefits apply to chocolate as a whole. The resolution only regards dark chocolate. So, it is clear that the benefits are non unique to this debate, as they apply to chocolate that isn't dark. Because of this, the weight loss benefit cannot be weighed in this debate due to non-uniqueness to the resolution. Furthermore, the affirmative side has given no connection between chocolate consumption and your "boobs being firm." This is another reason why the affirmative argument cannot be weighed. So, it is clear that the affirmative argument is non-unique, un-resolutional, and cannot even be connected to the very core of this debate. 1- http://healthyeating.sfgate.com...
Should The Excuse, "I was dared," be enough to make it Ok for this boy

Pro=you are arguing in favor of the proposition, so in this case pro would mean you think that the boy is justified by saying he was dared Con=you are arguing against the proposition, so in this case con would mean that you do not think that the boy is justified by saying he was dared. Since we would both take the position of con, there is nothing to debate. :)
Should The Excuse, "I was dared," be enough to make it Ok for this boy

You posted as part of your response,"Deliberately harming an innocent is bad regardless of the motivation. If you think that harming innocents is good, then your moral compass is malfunctioning..." I believe that there is some confusion as to what my position is in this debate and I, myself, am a little confused by the options listed. for example under the options for taking a position "for," or "against," It states for the option of (CON,) I am opposed to the Topic." I take this to mean that (CON) doesn't even want the topic discussed. Under the other option, (Pro,) it States, " I am in favor of the topic." which seems to me, to mean " That I don't mind if the topic is discussed." I too, believe that being dared to do something isn't a valid excuse for some action taken, whatever that action might be and I tried to convey this opinion in my post. I have to believe that this boy was acting upon something that he wanted to do and using the lame excuse that "He was dared to Kiss this young girl was a cover up for something that he wanted to do anyway. I believe, by what you wrote in response, that we are both in agreement on where we stand on this debate.
Should The Excuse, "I was dared," be enough to make it Ok for this boy

No, it should not suffice. I will demonstrate this with reductio ad absurdum. If this was a legitimate defense, then assassins would be able to use the defense that someone told them to kill a person, so it should be allowed. In fact any harm you cause to anyone else would be considered acceptable as long as someone else asked you to do it. We are responsible for our actions as long as they are not taken under duress and a dare is not duress. Deliberately harming an innocent is bad regardless of the motivation. If you think that harming innocents is good, then your moral compass is malfunctioning. Using his punishment as an example is okay, but it would be better to explain why his actions were wrong.
Should The Excuse, "I was dared," be enough to make it Ok for this boy

A young boy forced himself on a girl at school by grabbing her by her clothing and kissing her in a sexually provocative manner. The kissing by the boy of the girl was uninvited and his excuse was, that ," he did it on a dare." is this excuse good enough to let this boy off without having to legally answer for his molesting of this young femalel. If you were the parents of this young girl would the excuse given by the boy satisfy you or would you want the boy to be made to answer to authorities for his unacceptable conduct towards your daughter. Should this boy's punishment be used as an example by the school authorities that this kind of conduct has serious consequences and not to be condoned.
Should The Excuse, "I was dared," be enough to make it Ok for this boy

You replied<" Pro=you are arguing in favor of the proposition, so in this case pro would mean you think that the boy is justified by saying he was dared..." ( He wasn't justified in his actions taken.) Con=you are arguing against the proposition, so in this case con would mean that you do not think that the boy is justified by saying he was dared. Since we would both take the position of con, there is nothing to debate. AS I said before, We're both agreed that the boy was wrong in doing what he did without the girls permission.... We both agree on this but thanks for taking the time to reply to my question that i asked.
School Sports should be banned from public districts.

In his first argument, Pro mentions that "Many student from high-performing countries abroad- like China, India, etc. Are often shocked at how huge the focus on school sports is here", and emphasizes on "sports like football, basketball, and soccer teams- maybe even volleyball, tennis, rugby, cheer, and sometimes other sports.", in which only one of those sports requires much gear. He later argues (in R3), that "many students may pay up to 100 dollars to be able to play- add that to the cost of equipment, which many schools do not offer", which is not consistent with his original argument, as the majority of the sports he implied were most played required very little equipment. My argument is that the $100 dollar fee that Pro claims, would be less of a burden on low-income families to handle, than it would be if the more costly sports leagues were their only option.Pro then argues that the costs of medical care would accumulate, and that would leave the family in a worse financial position than before. He however, does not propose how his alternative to ban school sports would solve this issue; unless his proposal to ban said school sporting activities intends to lower the overall number of students playing sports, which would not be good, but that should be saved for another debate. Back to his argument though, students have just as much of a chance of getting injured and accumulating healthcare costs at the city-league sports activities that Pro suggested. This means my argument is valid.Pro later points out that for "many" students, sports are the root of their anxieties, because of the pressure on students "to win". The evidence I presented in R2, however, says the opposite. I referred to an article which explicitly states that students who engaged in school sports had lower depression and better mental health. [1]. The article Pro linked to just simply defines the various forms of stress, and appears to be targeted to the minority who may be experiencing anxiety/stress as a result of competitive sports. It however, does not provide statistics of any kind, or confirm any facts that would support an argument in this debate, the article is irrelevant in the context of this debate.I also want to address Pro's argument about distraction from sports. In my 2nd argument in R2, I did provide strong evidence that says sports has a positive effect on grades, and I think it is sufficient to say that sports does indeed have a POSITIVE effect on grades, and not a negative one as Pro claims.In R3, however, Pro didn't provide rebuttals against my 2nd Argument in R2, so I guess it is because he agrees that sports are a positive influence on grades.In conclusion, I think sports are an essential part of the high-school experience, and that its presence offers many benefits to students. To remove sports from schools would be a big mistake. Many student from high-performing countries abroad- like China, India, etc. Are often shocked at how huge the focus on school sports is here
School Sports should be banned from public districts.

My opponent has given evidence as to why schools need sports to meet the "equal opportunity" mission. However, not all school sports are as free as they seem- according to this article, (http://www.seattletimes.com...) many students may pay up to 100 dollars to be able to play- add that to the cost of equipment, which many schools do not offer, and medical care in case of injury- the cost climbs higher and higher- more than some families can afford. "Essentially what it does is exclude poor kids," said Dick Flanary, senior director for leadership programs at the National Association for Secondary School Principals in Washington, D.C. "We like to talk about a free public education. But that needs to mean something. There is no question that these fees affect participation, and they impact those kids that are the neediest." As you can see, The fees that go along with playing sports make my opponents first argument void. Besides that, I would like to bring to light another issue- stress. Many children and teenagers are encouraged and even pressured into doing sports, regardless of whether they want to or not. For some, sports are a getaway from stress- but for many, sports can be the root of that anxiety. Sports put a lot of pressure on students- pressure to win, pressure to be the best player, pressure to practice, practice, practice. according to this research (http://kidshealth.org...), "Most people play sports for the thrill of having fun with others who share the same interest. But it's not always fun and games. There can be a ton of pressure in high school sports. A lot of the time it comes from the feeling that a parent or coach expects you to always win." This illustrates the pressure on students to perform well at sports and school! With increasing pressure on students, many need to hone in and focus on their studies- after all, not many people ever make a career out of sports.
School Sports should be banned from public districts.

School Sports have plagued our school systems since 1903. Many student from high-performing countries abroad- like China, India, etc. Are often shocked at how huge the focus on school sports is here. Many schools have football, basketball, and soccer teams- maybe even volleyball, tennis, rugby, cheer, and sometimes other sports. However, the cost for these sports can be over 150,000 per YEAR. All this being taken from taxpayer money- if you do the math, let's say one small district has an elementary school, middle school, and high school. If the middle and high school both have sports, that cost could be somewhere near 300,000 dollars- enough for a good size house. What if we took away this insanely expensive tradition- for every school that eliminated- or maybe cut back- on sports, you could afford to provide shelter and food for a homeless person for a whole year. Plus- kids would still be able to participate in athletic activities! Many cities offer sports leagues to kids of all ages. Sure, they may cost a bit more, but when you think about it- you do pay for school sports; assuming you pay your taxes. And then we move on to the distraction issue. The whole point of having school at all is to learn skills that you can use for the rest of your life. Sure, sports may teach some of those- but if you show up to the office and throw your work around like a football, it's likely you won't be the employee of the month. My Mom used to tell me a story about how, in 6th grade, her history teacher/ cheer coach had the students put together signs for football games. I thought- and think- that that is really sad. School used to be an environment perfect for absorbing new information. How can students be expected to excel when school environments revolve around a recreational activity? To improve learning environments for the next generation, sports should be separated from school. During school hours, students need to focus on their education, and removing school sports may be necessary to attain such a focus.
The "zero tolerance" policy in schools is not just and should be removed

I'll address my opponent's points, then move on to affirm my own points. My opponent says that my statement of the topic, but changes nothing about the thesis but to say that it is authoritarian. Since the term "authoritarian" was not used in the debate topic originally advertised and was not used in Round 1, it should not be used in the debate topic. I claim that to include this in the thesis for the debate would be unfair conduct. My opponent may decide whether to strike this from the thesis. I will, however, show how zero-tolerance policies are not authoritarian. Authoritarian: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary). Since we are dealing with children who are not enfranchised, and the people is the body of enfranchised adults, this term does not apply in today's debate. If we were to misapply the term into the context of the debate, we would find that zero-tolerance policies are not authoritarian as they favor no one at all, and may actually level a playing field in which favoritism reigned. 1) Zero-tolerance violates due process. My Response: In defense, my opponent cites the ACLU. His source not say that students are entitled to the same rights as adults, merely that they have some of the rights. I will concede that students have some right to due process. My opponent completely failed, however, to address my point that zero-tolerance policies simply don't violate due process regardless of whether the students are entitled to due process. In fact, on the issue, his own sources said essentially the same thing I said in the previous round: zero-tolerance policies do not deprive students of life, health, liberty, or property without due process of law. 2) Children are punished unjustly. My Response: My opponent still fails to provide evidence that this is common enough to warrant action. Is it fair that some administrators are really, really unfair with their application of policies? No. Is it the fault of the policies? No. If my opponent can show credible statistics that children are punished more unjustly under zero-tolerance than under traditional policies, and that this gap is due to differences in the policies themselves, then he wins this point. Until then, this point is clearly negated. My own case, which my opponent has not addressed, is that zero-tolerance policies make sure that there is no favoritism and are thus more fair. He has not responded to this, and so I can only see a Con ballot in this round. Thank you.
The "zero tolerance" policy in schools is not just and should be removed

My opponent is wrong my thesis is that the zero tolerance policy is in general an unjust authoritarian system. And my opponent is wrong students ARE protected by the constitution and the bill of rights. In the bill of rights the 14th amendment states that due process is required and the supreme court has recognized that due process must be used in schools also. My sources are from the ACLU at this web address: http://www.aclupa.org... and here: http://www.aclum.org... these sites contain proof of the due process that us required. Also the zero tolerance policies are unjust be use they fail to allow administrators that ability to handle incidents on a case by case basis. News stations and many others have called zero tolerance equals zero intelligence. You should also watch the war on kids documentary. It reveals the corrupt schooling that is happening and that it needs to stop. There are dozens of cases that show the unjustness of zero tolerance for instance two boys get in a fight that was not caused by either party. When the bully starts the fight and the victim just sits there getting beat who do you think gets in trouble? No your wrong not just the bully both of them are suspended for violence under the zero tolerance policy. The inoccent victim is suspended for being beat by a bully. Ask yourself is this fair? It sure isn't. Here are a few websites with cases on them: http://www.akdart.com... this site has over 30 cases o unfairness in zero tolerance. Here are more websites: http://yuriartibise.com...
The "zero tolerance" policy in schools is not just and should be removed

The "Zero Tolerance policy is unjust and unfair. It does not allow due process witch is a right given to us in our bill of rights. We have all heard the stories of children in elementary school who are suspended or expelled for acts that aren't even worth punishment. Such as the 3rd grader the held a chicken finger like a gun pointed it at his teacher and said "pow". He was suspended on the zero tolerance policy for weapons. One time a principle ordered a SWAT raid on his school. Dozens of officers armed with shotguns and pistols stormed into the school and handcuffed the students of the high school supposedly to find narcotics but none were found. Also the elementary student who shot a spit ball at another student in response the school notified the police. Later that night the police arrived at the students house saying they were investigating a shooting when it was actually just a spit wad. This policy was intended to protect our students but instead it is clearly abusing them and should be removed from schools' policies. I will state more of my main points and evidence in round two.
Video games can be good.

Now to begin, I would like to point out the title, which is "Video game can be good. ". Keep in mind the word "can". What does can mean? Can is "Used to indicate possibility or probability" [1]. Basically, implying the possibility of something to do or be something. Though in some instances, video games may be bad, they CAN be good. So we also need to understand what a video game is. A video game is "any of various games that can be played by using an electronic control to move points of light or graphical symbols on the screen of a visual display unit" [2] So any game or activity using electronics is considered a video game. So let us look at a variety of games that are good. Good for children, education, entertainment etc. To start off, one game almost all of us have at least played once, Tetris. Tetris is a video game where you place shapes that are falling specifically in order to fit them all. When the blocks past the top, you lose. In this game, you need to estimate the ideal area to place the shape, in such a short time. This game promotes quick thinking, problem solving, and geometry. In the end, it can aid children in all these areas, making the game good. [3] Then there is also Minecraft. A very popular game, where you craft things, make mines, building etc. This game challenges creativity, while giving a fun entertaining way of game play. This fun game tests creativity, survival skills. Also, players make a variety of strategies. For example, they try to find the ideal layer under the ground to find specific things, such as gold and diamonds. This game tests creativity, strategy, and more, making it another good video game. This video game is good. [4] And let's not forget the huge amounts of online math games. These games help children improve there math skills, in a fun visual way. There are plenty of these on the internet. So in all these cases, video games are good. Video games can be good. This is what I am in favour of. So it is possible for video games to be be good. In conclusion, video games CAN be good. sources: 1. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 2. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
'Trigger Warnings' stifle debate

"Safe spaces and trigger warnings are being used as a cudgel to promote homogenous thinking and curb dissent in higher academia. College is supposed to be about learning, about perspective, and the free exchange of ideas. Confronting an opinion or worldview that you may not share, or may not have considered is NECESSARILY uncomfortable. This whole notion that anything that would make you uncomfortable needs a trigger warning, or creating physical areas for thought bubble in "safe spaces" is no more than coddling and pseudo-Orwellian conditioning. Do you think it's mature to call off classes, cry, and run into your play-dough and coloring book room because your presidential candidate lost an election? The mental gymnastics to think that these two things are anything but an intellectual blight to academia is farcical. The issue is when they get used to simply not listen to stuff you don't want to. For example, what if I am Christian. What if I said I got "triggered" by people making jokes about religion or claims to support atheism? That is when trigger warnings are taken to an extreme, but people have been using them in that way. In some ways, it can be patronizing. For someone who has experienced sexual violence, it could be read as a writer or an editor going, 'hey, you might be triggered by this - you might not be able to handle this'. The worry is that trigger warnings take agency away from the individual. They're absolutely paternalistic.
'Trigger Warnings' stifle debate

I will oppose the motion that "Trigger warnings stifle debate". Pro has fundamentally misunderstood what a trigger warning is: a trigger warning is simply a note to say "I'm about to talk about a potentially traumatic topic, so if you feel unable to participate in that discussion, please leave". It's about more than being "uncomfortable" as Pro puts it, but it's about actual trauma. For instance, one may feel uncomfortable when talking about evolution, as some people hold sincere religious beliefs that life was created by a deity. This does not, however, warrant a trigger warning, as no matter how uncomfortable that may make someone, it will never be *traumatic*. Trigger warnings are for topics such as rape, violence, starvation, mental health conditions, and other issues which are genuinely traumatic. Trigger warnings are necessary in order to protect individuals sensitive to those topics- it allows them to choose in advance whether, for instance, a discussion about domestic violence may cause serious issues due to their PTSD after having been a victim of domestic violence. No academic institution offers trigger warnings for ideas simply because they are controversial- only for ideas which are traumatic. Trigger warnings also don't stop the conversation from happening- that class will still discuss that issue, it's just that individuals who are unable to handle that issue are given a chance to choose not to participate in that discussion. That is why Pro's claim that "trigger warnings take agency away from the individual." is frankly nonsense- they *give* agency to the individual by giving them the chance to decide whether they feel able to discuss a certain potentially traumatic topic. No debate has ever been stopped from proceeding by a trigger warning. The motion is not only false, but also ridiculous. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://everydayfeminism.com...