BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is not ok to use words that elude to a conscious action about an unconscious object.

Oh dear, I don't think I communicated myself well when I challenged the Pro to the debate. You see Pro had originally posted a comment stating that "elude" was used incorrectly. This is true. There is no debate as to whether elude was the correct word or not. It is incorrect. My challenge to Pro was not to debate validity of "elude" in this context but to debate the topic in question. If this meant we had to make assumptions to clear up any confusing semantics (like elude possibly being a mistake for allude) then so be it. My focus was to explore the topic through a debate. This could still be done even with the incorrect usage of "elude". I am certain our brains are capable of seeing past these petty mistakes. And even if they aren't, it is exciting to me to see where this kind of unorthodox debate might lead us because once again I view debate as an exploratory exercise, not competitive. So, if Pro still wants to debate my original topic then lets do it. Pro can just claim this debate as a victory and we can start a new debate. Or we can spend the remaining round of this debate on the original topic. It is all the same to me. The corn is in your mouth Pro.
It is not ok to use words that elude to a conscious action about an unconscious object.

As requested by Con, I will be arguing Pro for the revised resolution " 'Elude' Was Used Out Of Context In the Title Of This Debate. " I.Construct I'll begin my argument now seeing as BoP lies on me. http://dictionary.reference.com... According to the above source, elude means to avoid or escape by means of speed or trickery. My opponent likely confused elude with allude, the latter making more sense in the context of the title. Were I to insert the above definition of elude into the title, it would come out like this. "It is not ok to use words that avoid or escape by speed, cleverness, trickery, etc. to a conscious action about an unconscious object." It is irrational to assume that mere words are capable of a physical action such as escaping. Much more for words to escape TO an action. Allude, however, would make much more sense in this context, seeing as phrases can in fact allude to an action. Furthermore, 'elude' is commonly confused with the word 'allude' since they are pronounced and spelled similarly. This further supports the idea that elude was used in place of allude, making the resolution nonsense. II. Closing Remarks Con's original resolution makes hardly any sense. "elude" was likely a typo and because of that was mistakenly used out of context. On to Con.
It is not ok to use words that elude to a conscious action about an unconscious object.

Definitions- ok - promote the exploration of a topic via a debate between two consciously acting humans. words = sounds, the meaning of which both parties mutually agree upon. conscious = aware of the "I" in ones action. Unconscious = unaware of the "I" in ones action. Action = existing in a particular way, or doing things in a particular way My stance - It helps the human brain learn It allows the human brain to understand abstract concepts in terms the brain is comfortable with, thus allowing said human brain the ability to explore said abstract concept further and make unforeseen dendritic connections between said abstract concept with knowledge that previously existed in the brain. The human brain has evolved enough to make distinctions between when to consider as reality the implications of a word with typically conscious-oriented actions being used on an unconscious object and when to consider it as simply an attempt of the brain saying the word to get it's point across.
Relationships Shouldn't Be Allowed Until High School

=My case=1. Non-aggression principle and governmental legitimacyThe individuals engaging in these relationships are engaging in private, personal, and contractual agreements. They are harming no one else's rights and as such any law disallowing the right of individuals to contractually ("contract" being used in the Austrian sense of mutual consent) engage in activity violating the rights of no one else is illegitimate. Government has no right to intervene is these kinds of affairs.2. Experience The good thing about these pre-highschool relationships is that given the relative lack of freedom held by these children (they cannot drive for example, there parents have to bring them to/from places) and their relative immaturity means that they generally either cannot or will not engage in harmful or sexual activities. What they can, however, gain is valuable experience. They might get sad at a "heart break", but this helps them to not make the same mistakes again and therefore cultivate more meaningful relationships in the future. By banning pre-highschool relationships the entire process is moved back.3. "Highschool" as a useless metric There's nothing inherent in High School that makes the relationships there any less heart breaking or damaging than those pre-highschool. If anything they are more painful as they often involve sex which has its own emotional strings attached. But "high school" means nothing, its the maturity that matters and makes a relationship significant, and theres no reason to presume this only occurs in high school.=Opponents case= My first attack is solvency. My opponent gains no ground since he cannot prove that parentaldisallowment/governmental legistlation will stop these kids from dating each other. There are plenty of examples that this isnt the case. Moreover if Pro contends that kids have so little respect for their parents that they wont even talk to him, why does he presume they wont be with their "love" even if their parents say no.Secondly my opponent doesn't explain why we need to value protecting people from suffering over their own personal freedom. Suffering isnt inherently bad; it often allows us to grow as people and realize our faults, along with adding maning to our lives. Third, Pro doesnt explain why only pre-highschoolers ought to be "protected" against this. If anything, high school relationships can be more devastating.Fourth, Pros arguments are an argument against the culture not the relationships. That these kids have nowhere/no one to turn to to resolve these problems is an issue that needs to be tackled on its own, banning frivilous things like this do nothing to help the real problem of the collapse of the family unit. Its like handing someone a tissue to fight the flu, you're battling the symptom not the disease.
Relationships Shouldn't Be Allowed Until High School

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- First off,I believe people who aren't in high school (I believe once you get into high school, you reach a higher level of maturity), should not be allowed (by either law or parents/legal guardians) to 'date'. From personal experience, I (sadly) know that a breakup can be hard. Especially to a child in middle school or elementary school. They will not know what to do. At that age, children and teens believe that talking to parents about 'relationship issues' is 'uncool' or 'awkward'. So, if they face a tough breakup, they will likely be devastated and not know what to do. Talking to friends almost always ends up in the friend(s) making fun of them. So, they could possibly (likely) turn to self-harm, drugs, or anything to make them feel better. ~DylipDylip
Relationships Shouldn't Be Allowed Until High School

Relationships (Dating) Should Not Be Allowed Until High SchoolHello, I'm Dylip. I've challenge thett3 to this debate as I hear they are very good at debating. ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-In this debate I will be arguing why dating should be illegal for teens (or children) until they have reached high school. ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-In this debate, citing of sources is not required, as in I would like to debate from the debators current knowledge on the subject.
The patriots will win the game tomorrow agianst the colt

Although my opponent may have stated that he believes the Patriots will beat the Colts, that does not support his side. The resolution of this debate is, ""The [P]atriots will win the game tomorrow ag[ain]st the [C]olt[s]. " There is no mention of my opponent's belief in that resolution. I have been able to negate the resolution successfully. If this was not my opponent's intention, then he should learn to write a resolution in a more effective manner. In my opponent's argument, he states that he believes the Patriots will win. However, according to the resolution, he must prove that they WILL win. My opponent has not been able to do so. "I do not have to prove that the Patriots will win. Please be sure to read the argument before you post yours. " According to the resolution, you do. You did not even post a viable argument. Stating that you believe something will happen gives no proof or evidence. Please be sure to check your resolution before creating a debate. "Now, the reason I believe the Patriots will win is because, even though the Patriots have lost two games, and the colts have lost non, is because the Patriots have played tougher teems then the colt this year. The colts have been playing easy teams so far. But tonight is going to be their hardest games. " Although the Patriots may have played tougher games than the Colts, that does not prove that they will win. Heck, everyone on the Patriots could become ill in ten minutes and be forced to forfeit, giving the Colts the victory. That is a possibility, and thus proves that the Patriots will not necessarily win. "I must not prove that the Patriots are going to win, please do some more research on word meanings. Pro vote is obvious. " According to the resolution, you must prove that the Patriots will / are going to win. You have not. Do some research on how to create a resolution. Con vote is obvious. Thank you.
The patriots will win the game tomorrow agianst the colt

Thank you for excepting this debate. If you would have continued to read my argument, you would have seen that I said "I believe that the Patriots are going to win tomorrow against the colts." Believe means to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so. I do not have to prove that the Patriots will win. Please be sure to read the argument before you post yours. Now, the reason I believe the Patriots will win is because, even though the Patriots have lost two games, and the colts have lost non, is because the Patriots have played tougher teems then the colt this year. The colts have been playing easy teams so far. But tonight is going to be their hardest games I must not prove that the Patriots are going to win, please do some more research on word meanings. Pro vote is obvious. Sources: http://www.nfl.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...
The patriots will win the game tomorrow agianst the colt

I negate the resolution, "The [P]atriots will win the game tomorrow ag[ain]st the [C]olt[s]. " As Instigator and Pro, it is my opponent's responsibility to uphold the resolution. If I am able to refute my opponent, the resolution shall be negated. Quick definitions: Patriots - New England Patriots - a professional American football team based in the Greater Boston area, playing their home games in the town of Foxborough, Massachusetts at Gillette Stadium. The team is part of the East Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). [1] Colts- Indianapolis Colts - a professional American football team based in Indianapolis, Indiana. They are members of the South Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). [2] When my opponent states that the Patriots will beat the Colts in their game tomorrow, he is giving an absolute statement. My opponent must prove that the Patriots will, in fact, beat the Colts in the game tomorrow. However, my opponent cannot prove the resolution. Tomorrow morning, Tom Brady, along with the rest of his offense and a good portion of the defense, may get sick and have to forfeit the game to the Colts. It is impossible for my opponent to prove that the Patriots will win the game tomorrow. He may prove that the Patriots are likely to win, but he cannot prove that the Patriots will win. Thus, the resolution is negated. My opponent has two days to post an argument. This gives him enough time to watch the game and see what the outcome is. However, in this debate, he must prove that the Patriots will win. Simply stating that the Patriots have won is not proving his side, it is merely showing the outcome of the game. My opponent must prove the Patriots will win, and has so far yet to do so. I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Seal Clubbing does more harm than good

Sigh. .. it would seem that Pro still hasn't learned his lesson. His argument from THIS round is copied from here - . http://www.slate.com... . I'm really getting tired of this. Why should I have to respond to arguments that Pro has just stolen from another source? And yes, once again it's plagiarism, because Pro hasn't even told us where he stole his new arguments from. If Pro really feels strongly about this issue, then perhaps he should actually come up with his own arguments. I would like to point out that regardless of whether you think me or my opponent did a better job, the voting criteria clearly states that the arguments should be their own. Since Pro has not presented any of his own arguments, then he has really provided no arguments at all, and thus has failed to uphold the resolution. Having looked at the source that Pro's plagiarised argument provides it is actually a distortion. In actual fact, the report emphasises many times that in the vast majority of cases the seals are rendered unconscious and that in the small amount of cases that the skull is not crushed completely, the seals will most likely have been bled unconscious anyway. For instance, 'during the hunt in the Gulf in 1999, which was carried out mainly with the use of hakapiks, Bollinger and Campbell examined a minimum of 225 carcasses of beaters. At least 220 of these carcasses were of animals that had been killed prior to the observers' arrival on the ice floes. Skulls of all but 4 (1.8%) carcasses had multiple depressed fractures of the calvarium, with massive destruction of the underlying cerebral cortex'. It goes on to say that the remaining four were probably rendered unconscious after being struck anyway - . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . 2. This is ridiculous. As already pointed out, ragged jackets look very similar to suckling pups. Otherwise, this is just a play on emotions. I imagine I could do the same with any animal after dead and make the audience feel sorry for it. The creature isn't suffering anymore because it's in that state. 3. Attacking your sources is perfectly legitimate even if you hadn't plagiarised from them. 4. Uh huh. And.
Seal Clubbing does more harm than good

Well, if you read my round, my main accusations against my opponent were cheating not plagiarism (which is most definitely true). However since Pro brings it up, yes, he did plagiarise his entire round. He is correct that had he sourced his arguments (and a nice note saying: 'oh and by the way, I didn't come up with any of this - it all came from here' would be nice as well) then it would not have been plagiarism. However, he didn't! He gave lots of irrelevant sources, but none of those were links to the place he stole his arguments from. 1. Well, I invite Pro to provide some concrete evidence that a significant proportion hunters do indeed fail to use their hakapiks correctly. Since we have already established that when used correctly, the hakapik is a perfectly humane method of killing, then this is the only point Pro can argue. But until he presents concrete evidence, this is analogous to claiming that farmers use inhumane methods of slaughtering simply because they do not know how to do it - this is an irrelevant objection until evidence is provided that they actually don't use such methods correctly. 2. Pro assets, completely without evidence, that there is a black market that does in fact hunt suckling pups. I am a little sceptical of his claim that he has experienced this first hand (he's only fourteen), but in any rate this is irrelevant until he presents evidence. He also presents an emotional argument about killing young pups - well, we kill lambs for food; we kill many, many other animals when young for sustenance. If my opponent wants to pursue this, then he's essentially arguing against the entire meat industry which is really beyond the scope of this debate. Just because a killing method is used on a young animal doesn't make it inhumane; the killing method itself must be flawed for that to be the case. 3. 'Sources' is very different from 'arguments'. The two are not the same - one should complement the other. 4. This is absurd - I, and the person who created that game, are clearly joking (he also makes other games poking fun at sensitive issues). If that has offended my opponent I'm sorry, but it has nothing to do with this debate. My opponent's last statement is revealing - he may find it 'disturbing', but that is very different from having a rational basis for rejecting it.
Seal Clubbing does more harm than good

Because My Opponent Would Like To Play Dirty I would like to say that while I did copy from the wiki source I stated my sources, so this is not Plagiarism is defined as the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own, by Princeton university. By stating my sources I am NOT plagarising, obviously my opponent likes dirty debates. ------------- 1. My opponent stated that "It shows that used properly, the 'hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely' and that it 'is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses" As I have stated before, many seal hunters even don't know how to use a hakapik correctly or they don't care. The point is, that if a seal isn't killed instantly, it will be skinned alive. 2. "In actual fact suckling pups are not hunted but legally hunted "ragged jackets" look very similar so that observers can be fooled into thinking that suckling pups are being killed" This is a common misconception, in reality suckling pups ARE HUNTED! There is a black market in Europe that I have seen first hand that sells seal pup skin because it is "more comfortable" and more "stylish" . As I have stated before 97% percent of the estimated million harp seals killed in the last four years have been under three months old, and the majority of these are less than one month old. So, if killing baby seals is good, then has a point. 3. When you're done being a noob and attacking my sources I'd like to get on with the debate 4. I would like to point out the comment my opponent posted to this debate, her'es the link: . http://www.newgrounds.com... That clearly shows that my opponent thinks clubbing seals is a game, there you go people Arguments Repeated For the reasons that it's Cruelty To Animals and it kills young pups, take the side that isn't extremely violent and disturbing.
Seal Clubbing does more harm than good

First, allow me to note that Pro has copied his entire case from the wikipedia article on seal hunting - . http://en.wikipedia.org... This combined with the emotional nature of this debate makes it clear that Pro is simply trying, like many other cheaters on this website, to get a easy win. The sources he lists at the end of the debate appear to have no relation at all to his arguments (presumably he was hoping nobody would notice) and are simply there to get the sources point. They should be disregarded. There are a number of points I would like to make. 1. Pro's source, coming from the neutral website wikipedia (you know what I mean - I don't care about accusations of leftism, that has nothing to do with this debate), actually provides many of the refutations I need to win this debate. Indeed, every single contention he presents contests itself! For instance, the first is actually more in MY favour than Pros. It shows that used properly, the 'hakapik is an efficient tool designed to kill the animal quickly and humanely' and that it 'is at least as humane as the methods used in commercial slaughterhouses'. The only counter point it seems to present is speculation that the seals may have not been knocked unconscious or that the sealers didn't check to ensure that they were dead prior to skinning them which, while unfortunate, is not actual evidence that those seals hadn't been knocked out - that's sheer speculation. 2. Pro's second argument is misleading by virtue of him copying it without looking at the context. The point is in response to anti-sealing groups actively misleading the public by using supposed images of whitecoat seals despite them not being hunted anymore. In actual fact suckling pups are not hunted but legally hunted "ragged jackets" look very similar so that observers can be fooled into thinking that suckling pups are being killed. 3. I feel no compelling reason to present my own argument since Pro has plagiarised all of his, I'll leave you with this quote from the wikipedia page: 'in 2005, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) commissioned the Independent Veterinarians Working Group Report. With reference to video evidence, the report states: "Perception of the seal hunt seems to be based largely on emotion, and on visual images that are often difficult even for experienced observers to interpret with certainty. While a hakapik strike on the skull of a seal appears brutal, it is humane if it achieves rapid, irreversible loss of consciousness leading to death. " The resolution, by virtue of my opponents own plagiarised arguments, is negated.