BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Detention in School Actually Serves a Higher Purpose

I accept your definition of Detention and "Higher Purpose" and I apologize for not clarifying "Higher Purpose" in the Resolution. I agree with you descriptions for all the punishments, but who is not to say " Placing a student in front of the class with a hat that says "creationist" or "dunce" Wouldn't have an effect? Yes, detention does serve the purpose of getting some form of educational work complete, but does it really convince the student not to misbehave? At what point did you define higher purpose to be completing something educational. All you said was that it had to do something more than just a punishment. (I must show that after school detention serves some purpose other than "just" punishment and that this purpose is "higher" than punishment) Public Humiliation is the best form of punishment. http://www.kstatecollegian.com... Thus, if Detention does not convince the student to quit misbehaving, is it ultimately fulfilling a higher purpose? ---Debatek3
Alien existence

I understand why you would need proof to believe this, but even before my abduction, I never denied the possibility. There are about 25 million Earth-like planets in our Milky Way galaxy alone. Doesn't that make you at least wonder if there is anyone out there. Anywhere you go on Earth there are bacteria - from the lowest, darkest depths of the ocean, to the steaming hot lava - so don't you think this life could survive somewhere else? No, I don't have proof, but I don't understand how people can be so ignorant as to not even consider the possibility.
Humans are right to be considered animals.

After much deliberation, here is my opening argument. According to taxonomy, Humans are defined into the following categories: (http://members.cox.net...) Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Mammalia Order: Primata Family: Hominidae Genus: Homo Species: Homo sapiens All other living things are defined using this catagorical system. Con's position is that Humans should not be classed a animals (as their kingdom would dictate); rather that they should be separated from the rest of their kingdom. The question is; why should Homo sapiens be excluded from the kingdom animalia? It has all the correct characteristics for its assigned domain, kingdom, phylus, class, order, family, genus and species, and so any deviation from this must have significant scientific merit. The truth is that humans do not have significant differences in order to create its own kingdom. Let's just show this in perspective; the other kingdoms are monera, protista, fungi and palntae. Humans do not even come close to being assigned to these kingdoms. Likewise, to be assigned one of their own, they would have to show as many differences between other animals and humans as there are between other animals and plants, fungi, bacteria, or any other living thing within a different kingdom. It is up to my opponent to show that humans have the significant differences to warrant their exclusion from the status of animal.
Humans are right to be considered animals.

Obviously I have a problem with your definitions because they make the debate a truism! I'm going to accept your definitions except that I will add a second definition of animal - "Any such living thing other than a human being" (Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary). It is my view that this second definition should be considered more accurate. My overall argument will be that there is no reason why a human should be considered an animal, and that doing so has serious negative ramifications for society. Given that the burden of proof is on my opponent, however, I invite him to open the substantive part of this debate.
Humans are right to be considered animals.

Hello, I will use this first round to state my position and define some terms. I am for the position that Humans are rightfully considered as animals as stated in taxonomy. Con will be for Humans to be considered separate from animals in terms of taxonomy. Definitions: Animal- A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, non photosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) Human- Member of the species Homo Sapien (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man"). Let me know if you have any problems with the definitions or anything else. Cheers
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

My opponent denied the fact about sexual consummation, but she cannot elaborate further to support her notion that that the existence of asexual or polyamorous individuals, are both direct contradictions to the notion that it is necessary to consummate a romantic relationship through sexual activity. Also, she doubled down the argument that all of the benefits I stated in Round 3 are extremely bad for one"s romantic relationship. Perhaps she ignored the fact that couples who don"t consummate could lead to higher divorce rates. Let"s have another one, so that my opponent can think twice. This time, from Hilda Hutcherson, M.D., Columbia University professor of obstetrics and gynecology, where she enumerates how consummation is beneficial for a young couple and those are as follows: less stress, sounder sleep, minimized pain, fewer colds, a youthful glow, lighter periods with fewer cramps, and a more toned body. [1] We are in the age of globalization, social media, and online dating, and more couples tend to have intimacy to each other while they have the passion to commit themselves. Whether married or not, they have the fulfillment to submit themselves to one another. The arguments in both Round 2 and 3 are based on scientific standpoint, but there are other reasons why, and it is on the Biblical standpoint, stated in Chapter 7 of Songs of Solomon, wherein the completeness of a romantic relationship can be interpreted by submission for both married and pre-married couples. [2] As summarized in a more comprehensive way, the bride and the groom have more words of praise for each other, because love is an endless fountain of inspiration for a stable relationship, despite the ups and downs. In verses 1-9, the groom puts every figurative language to describe how attractive the bride is not just by the purity of her heart, but also by its appearance. Natural imagery abounds as her beauty is linked to the landscape. He describes the bride as "stately as a palm tree" and says he will "climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches" (7:7). In short, he metaphorically described the bride through intimacy. The groom says with passion through his heart, that the bride"s kisses are like "the best wine that goes down smoothly, gliding over lips and teeth" (7:9), and in her response to the groom, she will "give you my love" (7:12). In Hebrew, the exact word is dodim, and it means lovemaking, which concludes that consummation is necessary for the completion of a romantic relationship. I rest my case for Round 4. [1] http://www.womenshealthmag.com... [2] http://biblehub.com... [3] http://www.shmoop.com...
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

Pro's definition of a romantic relationship: "intimacy, passion, and commitment" does not exclude non-sexual romantic relationships, in that not all intimacy is sexual. Like most definitions, the following definition of intimacy does not require it to be sexual: "a close, familiar, and usually affectionate or loving personal relationship with another person or group." [See source 3] For example, cuddling with someone is intimate, but not sexual. If Pro axiomatically defines romance as necessarily requiring sexual intimacy, then this is a begging the question fallacy [see source 4]- Pro is assuming all romance is sexual in an attempt to demonstrate that all romantic relationships require sexuality. Pro lists a bunch of benefits to being sexually active, but does not demonstrate that being sexually active directly causes an individual's romantic relationship to be stronger. Indeed, all of the benefits listed by Pro would also come to someone practising sexual infidelity, but that would be considered extremely bad for one's romantic relationship. Hence, it does not follow from Pro's statements that romantic relationships necessarily require sexual consummation. I will repeat my main argument- that the existence of asexual individuals who still participate in romantic relationships, or polyamorous individuals who do not primarily have sexual relations with their primary romantic partner, are both direct contradictions to the notion that it is necessary to consummate a romantic relationship through sexual activity. The rest of Pro's statements are irrelevant to the motion, since it is on whether it is necessary to consummate romantic relationships sexually, rather than on whether or not premarital sex is beneficial, which is a separate issue entirely. My case for R3 rests. Sources: [3]: http://www.dictionary.com... [4]: http://grammarist.com...
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

Well, my opponent cannot address the fact that consummation is necessary because the definition of a romantic relationship can be summed up into three words: intimacy, passion, and commitment. If she said that there are some couples who do not require sexual consummation with their romantic partner in order to remain satisfied in a romantic relationship, she must have meant that she ignored sexual intimacy in the equation, leading to the so-called "fatuous love", exemplified by courtship and marriage. She challenged me to respond to her third standpoint, establishing that it's having higher sexual activity which causes couples to be happier. Well, there are specifically reasons for that and science proves it: revitalizing the immune system, boosting libido, improving women"s bladder control, lowering the blood pressure, counting it as exercise, lowering the risk of cardiovascular diseases, lessening pain, decreasing chances of likelihood of prostate cancer, improving sleep, and easing stress. [1] Going back to what I said in Round 2, premarital sex, or consummation before marriage, has been accepted by Western societies since the 1960s. The only ones who argue that it is immoral and morally unacceptable are secular conservative nations, especially in predominant Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Jordan, and Palestine, while many Western nations viewed it as acceptable regardless of religion. In my country, which is one of the two Roman Catholic nations in Asia, 71% view it as immoral while 20% did not. In your country, 30% disapprove it while 29% approve. The countries which mostly believe that it is morally acceptable are from EU member states like United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland, Greece, and the two predominant Roman Catholic countries on that list, Spain and Italy. [2] So, consummation before marriage can either be morally right or wrong. However, we are already in the 21st century, and more couples are doing it in order to experience sexual expression towards one another, because if they don"t, they might end up in a breakup or in a divorce. Sexual expression is the universal need of all people, and it is a moral right and obligation. I refute on her point, I rest my case for this round, but my opponent insists that the motion is failed. Isn"t it the case that in all fun and games of stating opinions backed up by factual evidences, the motion will fail if she repeats her "case" all over again, and she loses steam when it comes to defending my arguments? Perhaps she should think twice before I continue to do this all over again, defending what is right and what is necessary. [1] http://www.webmd.com... [2] http://www.pewglobal.org...
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

My opponent has not addressed my first, and most important, point- that there exist those (notably asexual individuals and those who practice polyamory) who do not require sexual consummation with their romantic partner in order to remain satisfied in a romantic relationship. Unless my opponent can refute this point, the motion must be considered to have failed, as the existence of such individuals directly contradicts the notion that romantic relationships necessarily require sexual consummation in order to be maintained. Pro also needs to respond to my third point, and establish that it's having higher sexual activity which causes couples to be happier, rather than couples being happier together which causes more sexual activity. I feel I didn't expand further on the remarks I have already made at this point, and as such, my case rests for this round.
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

As my counter-argument on the Contender"s second case, a romantic relationship entirely dependent on sex to exist can last longer because not only did that relationship enter intimacy, but also rejuvenate passion and reaffirms the commitment to get even closer. In fact, America"s viewpoint on women and sex has been given claims since the formulation of Sternberg"s theory. Society tells us that premarital sex is immoral according to the evangelical standpoint, and women who have that kind are being conceived to sin. However, when she got married to the man she truly loves; sex has turned into an amazing experience because that is already the completion of an amorous relationship. Jill Filipovic of The Guardian explains the reasons why the attitude about premarital sex is hindering happiness, and how embracing sex is beneficial not just for a relationship, but also to the society as a whole, saying that "denouncing premarital sex and promoting abstinence are not working, and loving relationships are made through intimacy." [1] Consummation, even before marriage, is beneficial because of the following: [2] 1. People who have sex are happier, as long as their relationship grows fonder. 2. Sex is healthy and natural because humanity is almost certainly the result of a sexual union. 3. Premarital sex leads to more stable and long-lasting marriages. 4. Sex feels great, increasing the emotional pressure towards affection and pleasure. 5. Sex is good, whether married or not, and waiting until marriage tends to high divorce rates. 6. Premarital sex has been accepted by Western societies since the 1960s. 7. Sexual compatibility matters in relationships. 8. Discouraging people from having premarital sex has never been recorded in human history. In summary of these, consummation through intercourse is necessary in order for that relationship to be whole so that by the time the couple gets married, their development towards them increases as they tend to go steady in making their plans, and if my opponent thinks that it is wrong, it is very inconceivable to think that it is the only way to define what "relationship goals" is. [1] https://www.theguardian.com... [2] http://jezebel.com...
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

Consummation, by definition, is the act of making a marriage or a romantic relationship complete by having sexual intercourse. [1] It is necessary for a couple to make their relationship official by making love for each other because it is the highest form, as stated in Sternberg"s triangular theory of love, represented by the highest point in the middle of the triangle. Consummate love is a combination of a relationship with intimacy, passion, and commitment. [2] According to him, couples with this kind of love have great sexual drive fifteen or more years into their relationship, they cannot imagine themselves happier over the long-term with anyone else, they overcome their few difficulties gracefully, and each having their delight in the relationship. In theory itself, consummate love is that love associated with "a picture perfect couple". [3] Without consummate love, that relationship has no moral completeness and passed out. Some couples who didn"t have sex could end up in a breakup. For a relationship to be official, the couple should show a display of affection to each other, whether publicly or privately, because if they commit to each other while they"re young, intimacy grows fonder as they keep on getting closer. Besides, even if the couple isn"t married, they consummate to themselves because they are mature enough to express their passion through affection. In short, the transition from "just friends" to "friends with benefits" to "a picture perfect couple" can be achieved through sexual intimacy. [1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org... [2] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [3] "Cupid's Arrow - the Course of Love through Time" by Robert Sternberg. Publisher: Cambridge University Press (1998) ISBN 0-521-47893-6
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

Once again, the existence of asexual and polyamorous individuals directly demonstrates the falsehood of the notion that it is necessary for couples to consummate romantic relationships sexually. Pro's main argument seems to have been studies demonstrating that there are some individuals for which sexual activity correlates with (but doesn't necessarily cause) being more satisfied in the relationship. While this may be true, this is completely irrelevant- imagine the motion being discussed was: "It is necessary that birds are capable of flight"- all I'd need to do, as Con, is demonstrate that there are birds which are not capable of flight (ostriches, penguins etc.). Likewise, in this case, all I need to do is point out that there are some individuals who do not find it necessary to consummate their romantic relationships sexually. Hence, it is not inherently necessary to consummate romantic relationships sexually. Case closed.
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

"I recognize that there are individuals who are only capable of maintaining a romantic relationship with someone they are also sexually involved with. I'm not trying to deny that. However, it's not necessary to consummate all romantic relationships through sexual activity, as there exist many people who are perfectly happy not to. As such, the motion fails." The truth is, couples who found intimacy at each other consummate their relationship by sexual intercourse because it would strengthen their relationship even more once they encounter it, so that by the time of their marriage, sex is an experience and love is a wonderful thing. In fact, intimacy towards one another fills with passion that for every caress they made, their heart grows fonder and their drive intensifies so that they complete their relationship through lovemaking. For five rounds of a duel between a man and a woman for the integrity of young love, I stood in with every single argument, scientifically and morally, stating the truth about romantic relationships and how it is completed through consummation, but she continues to deny the facts of life and jumping to conclusions that the motion fails by stating the reality for polyamorous and asexual couples, as well as her arguments that sex isn"t necessary. Perhaps, she spends too much time stating the arguments which, in reality, the motion she fought for has failed. She said that she could not find anything else relevant to the motion which I stand, but little she did not know is that I stand for what is right, what is necessary, and what matters, stating the reality and separating it from the fiction which she continues to refute that such evidence. Isn"t it the case that in this debate for the consummation of young couples, she swung with arguments which could make mine irrelevant, but she missed because she cannot deny the truth that I stand for? I have nothing to say anything further, but I encourage the members of this community to make that choice between Pro that fights for young love and young romance and Con that continues to spill the arguments, yet she does not back up with counterclaims to question it. With that, I rest my case for this debate and I cannot wait to see if Con has enough energy left to look at all of my arguments before she jumps into conclusions.
A romantic relationship through consummation is necessary.

"My opponent denied the fact about sexual consummation, but she cannot elaborate further to support her notion that that the existence of asexual or polyamorous individuals, are both direct contradictions to the notion that it is necessary to consummate a romantic relationship through sexual activity." One would think this was obvious, but very well, I shall expand on this point further: Asexual individuals do not experience sexual attraction, and most of them do not participate in sexual activity. They are, however, perfectly capable of maintaining romantic relationships. As such, the existence of asexual individuals demonstrates that it is possible for one to maintain a romantic relationship without consummating it through sexual activity. Polyamorous people sometimes have romantic partners they are not sexually active with- for example, if they are dating an asexual individual but still satisfy their sexual desires elsewhere, or if they have one partner they are more romantic towards and another they are more sexual towards. As such, they, too, are examples of individuals who maintain romantic relationships despite little, or no, sexual contact with their romantic partner. "Perhaps she ignored the fact that couples who don"t consummate could lead to higher divorce rates." I recognise that there are individuals who are only capable of maintaining a romantic relationship with someone they are also sexually involved with. I'm not trying to deny that. However, it's not *necessary* to consummate all romantic relationships through sexual activity, as there exist many people who are perfectly happy not to. As such, the motion fails. I couldn't find anything else relevant to the motion in Pro's R4 speech. Hence, no further argument in this round.
Why Bidoof is the best Pokemon ever.

I would like to point out that if stats are lower, it's not stronger unless it has skills that can target the opponent's weakness. You have not asserted that in your argument, and even if you did, the assertion would have to have proof that it has moves that are powerful against ALL other Pokï¿½mon (simultaneously, even) since you used the superlative "best". If there is even one Pokï¿½mon that is better stat-wise or move-wise, then your argument is shattered. I have demonstrated that there is a Pokï¿½mon better in stats, better in moves, and better in Smogon. Thank you for this debate. Magikarp just called me and told me that it's better than Bidoof.
Why Bidoof is the best Pokemon ever.

You recognise that Pikachu can shock Ground Pokï¿½mon in the television show, which while contradictory to the game still shows a positive trait of Pikachu. .. in the show. You also assert that Pikachu "dies to anything". I would like to show a video in which not only does Pikachu win, Pikachu also receives a hit from the opponent's Staryu and does not "die". . http://www.youtube.com... I would also like to refer back to the source and demonstration that there are additional Pokï¿½mon with the ability "Moody" that makes Bidoof stronger than others. . http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net... I would also like to compare the stats of Bidoof with another Pokï¿½mon in the Uber tier, Arceus, without Moody. Stats of Bidoof: HP: 322, Atk: 207, Def: 196, SpA: 185, SpD: 196, Spe: 177. Stats of Arceus: HP: 444, Atk: 372, Def: 372, SpA: 372, SpD: 372, Spe: 372. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: . http://www.smogon.com... . http://www.smogon.com...
Why Bidoof is the best Pokemon ever.

TO PIKACHU TO PIKACHU!!?!?!? Your a generic Ash ketchup fan I see. Pikachu is not as good in the game as it is in the show, in the show it can shock ground pokemon, in the game it dies to anything. Especialy Bidoof. I was able to solo all the games you can get Bidoof in, this leads me to another issue, why can't you get Bidoof in all games? Any way, Bidoof is Uber, Pikachu isn't even in NU, that makes Bidoof better, despite less stats, Bidoof is still much stronger according to Smogon.