BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no doubt that unicorns never existed.

I am glad that my opponent will grant at least a section of my definition of a unicorn, but I wonder whether he has a problem with the entire description of what is essentially a horned horse? I hasten to clarify that the magical properties of the unicorn are not a necessary part of the definition- there have been plenty of unearthly properties attributed to everyday creatures for that alone to be a qualifier!Aristotle regarded the unicorn as 'possible' even 'plausible', but he did not actually say it was proven. As I mentioned, the unicorn was treated as real by the ancients, but they also held that other, mythical beings existed, and they couldn't seem to agree on the particulars. Pliny the Elders description of unicorns was of a savage creature with a stags head, elephants feet a a large black horn that 'cannot be taken alive'. Marco Poly said the unicorn was as large as an elephant, hair like a buffalo and preferred to wallow in mud. Both of these are likely to be descriptions of rhinoceros, which is the only extant,breeding hoofed animal that actually has a single horn.[http://www.paralumun.com...][http://www.unicorncollector.com...]Whic brings me to the modern era. In the 1980's, Ringling brothers took goat kids, and surgically attached the horn buds into the center of the forhead. The resulting animal was briefly advertised as The Real Live Unicorn, but overwhelming controversy shut the attraction down. This cannot count as an actual, true breeding unicorn, but a bit of showmanship.[http://www.clevelandmagazine.com...]
There is no doubt that unicorns never existed.

Firstly, I will grant a section of my opponent's definition of a unicorn, the addition of "few goat features, a beard. .. and sometimes cloven hooves. " However, I will not need to prove that unicorns possessed magical capabilities as that was not present in the definition I gave at the onset of the debate. I should further define the word legendary so as there is no confusion later on. Legendary-of the nature of a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Thus, my opponents arguments seem to work very much in my favor. The great philosopher Aristotle believed in the existence of unicorns as my opponent clearly states. Not only this, but it is certainly possible due to evolutionary records that a creature with the above physiology is certainly possible. There is a water animal, the Narwhal, with similar anatomy to the described unicorn, but the unicorn would obviously be slightly different, such as the cloven hooves, as it would need land adaptations.
There is no doubt that unicorns never existed.

Hello blazeratman,and thank you for offering this debate. As it is impossible to prove a negative in an absolute sense, I will demonstrate that it is more probable that the European Unicorn never existed, beyond a reasonable doubt. To begin, the characteristics of the European unicorn are a combination of a horses body with a few goat features- a beard, a single horn, and sometimes cloven hooves. Not to bad to start with, but the beast is also and always described as being magical in nature as well. Stories about this animal began in ancient Greece, which also created myths about the Olympian gods, cyclops, sirens, and so forth. Like these other myths, the unicorn was from the beginning credited with supernatural powers. Cestus described a 'wild a$$' (the profanity filter in debate.org seem to have a false positive!) in India in the second century BCE, having a tricolored horn that could ward deadly poisons. Aristotle, among others belived that the unicorn could exist, but denied the curative properties of the horn. Later, in the Middle Ages, the horn was cosidered to be a powerfull ward against evil. Unicorns were claimed to be seen, hunted, even tamed my chaste maidens. [http://unicorncollector.com...] However, as with so many magical things, the modern world came along, and actual evidence began to be required- and that evidence was never forthcoming. There was no way a piece of bone could cure all poisons, there are no unicorn skulls or hides, no modern analogs of the unicorn close enough to be an evolutionary reletive. Pieces of horn that were held to be unicorn are now known to be from other source, most famously the narwhal. [http://www.polarfield.com...] There are no verified indications that unicorns are, or have ever been real. And without those, the unicorn must be held to be a fiction.
video games really cause bad behaviour in children

As my oponent has stated, I can't help but to expresss my opinion that that is exactly when children are being attrackted into being bad behaviour. They think "oh well there is no adult in the house, no one will see me playing this game and they will never know" so they go a head and play the game and they don't even really notice the unappropriate age level !!!!!!!!! Children will do anything to play "THEIR" game without being told that they should turn it off !!! :))))))))))
video games really cause bad behaviour in children

I see my oponents view and i can understand why she would say this. People of all ages of all kinds, they all have their own level of "danger",(i guess i can call it). And by "danger" i mean, their own level of inappropriate violence. i just saying that kids dont know when to keep going or to stop, or when and how to choose the right game. Most parents are at work while their children come home after school. That gives the kids at home to do what ever they want! If they know they are only suppost to be undersupervision by their parents but they are just to addicted to that game, then they are just going to go right a head and play the game they wan't to play!
video games really cause bad behaviour in children

In my opinion, video games are not ALWAYS causing bad behaviour in children. Video games have classifications for ages, in this case parents/guardians should be aware which classification the game their children are playing is classified to be at their aged appropriate level ! If parents/guardians know what their children are playing, and they are aware it could lead to futher attention/notice, then they were warned that their children may or may NOT follow the example set before them! What if the game is not all that violent, then is it still causing bad behaivour in children? In this case, (in my opinion) the game is not causing any bad behaviour/bad examples to demonstrate to the children. ! :))))
"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

It seems that Pro has chosen to contest both premises.DEFENSE OF PREMISE I"If something is unecessary and dangerous, it should be made illegal""I am more than certain you will drink alcohol or you do drink alcohol right now. How can assume that? Because over 2/3 of Americans drink alcohol occasionally. Chances are good, you will drink alcohol."Lol I don't drink alcohol..."Now answer this, obviously alcohol is not a necessity and is dangerous because it claims over 10,000 lives each year (according to the CDC) Tell me why 'assault weapons' need to be banned but not alcohol?"Alcohol SHOULD be banned. The reason it didn't work out back during the Probation is that alcohol has addictive qualities that make it extremely difficult for people to stop using it. Assault weapons have no such qualities, and thus, can be banned.Also, I should clarify that alcohol is simply a beverage that some misuse. Assault weapons, on the other hand, were DESIGNED to kill people, and are not even comparable to alcohol in terms of potential to harm. "Cars which travel above 30mphs per hour have no significant benefit to society. Why does someone need a 2,000 pound vehicle to travel around places when there is something called a bus or train? Your logic flawed on a grand level."Cars DO have a significant benefit to society... they provide an amount of freedom in terms of schedule flexibility as well as mobility that buses and trains can never provide. My logic is perfectly fine.All Pro has done thus far is provide 2 irrelevant counter-examples, neither of which really disprove the premise.DEFENSE OF PREMISE II" Assault weapons are both dangerous and illegal""Your thinking of fully automatic rifles. So called 'assault weapons' are semi automatic rifles WITH 'assault weapon' features."It sounds like Pro is attempting to change the definition of "assault weapon" here.According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, an "assault weapon" includes ANY automatic or semi-automatic fire arm [1]. Pro did not provide a special definition in round 1, so we must go with the standard dictionary definition; not whatever definition Pro is trying to introduce mid-debate. Also, Pro has provided quite the bulk load of statistics upon which he has based his case... however, NONE of them are cited. They shall be dismissed as part of the 87% of statistics that are made up on the spot :PIn summary, Pro's counter-examples do not disprove premise I, and none of his statistics aimed at debunking premise II have been sourced, and thus cannot be trusted.Both premises remain standing, along with the conclusion: assault weapons should be banned. SOURCE(S)[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
"assault weapons" should NOT be banned

Thanks to Pro for instigating this debate.My argument is rather simple:P1) If something is unecessary and dangerous, it should be made illegalP2) Assault weapons are both dangerous and illegalConclusion: Assault weapons should be made illegalDefense of Premise IIf something has the potential to harm people, and it doesn't serve any significant beneficial purpose to balance it out, then it would obviously be a logical choice to remove that "something" and take away any possibility of harm by banning it. Anyhow, I do not believe this premise will be contested by my opponent, though if he wishes to do so, I would be happy to engage him on it.Defense of Premise II1) Assault Weapons are DangerousThis seems rather obvious, as anyone who has been shot by even a weak gun can contest, and the numerous mass-shootings that have been happening recently also go to exemplify this fact. 2) Assault Weapons are UnnecessaryThe main purpose of having gun rights in the United States is to provide a means for self defense. However, assault weapons were originally designed for use in the military; generally civilians are not involved in the kinds of scuffles that the military is involved in; thus, civilians do not need to have assault weapons for self-defense, as any old hand gun will suffice for their purposes.With both of the premises shown to be true, the conclusion logically follows that assault weapons should be banned.If my case seems a bit thread-bare, it's because it is. It is basically common sense.Hopefully there will be more to say in the following rounds with Pro's arguments, rebuttals, and defenses.Your turn, Pro.
Brett Favre is one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL.

I shall negate the resolution, "Brett Favre is one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL. " ==================== Reading through my opponent's argument, he has failed to provide what NFL he is referring to. As this may be confusing, I shall provide the definition of the NFL: NFL- National Forensic League- a non-partisan, non-profit educational honor society established to encourage and motivate high school students to participate in and become proficient in the forensic arts: debate, public speaking, and interpretation. NFL is the nation's oldest and largest high school speech and debate honor society. Since 1925 NFL has enrolled over 1.3 million students in fulfillment of its motto, "training youth for leadership. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... =================== Argumentation: My opponent has provided contentions as to why Brett Favre is the best quarterback in the National Football League. However, as this is a debating website and there are many users who belong to the National Forensic League, my opponent's arguments do not apply to my proposed definition of NFL. Brett Favre has never been a part of the NFL (National Forensic League). Due to the fact that Brett Favre has never been a member of the National Forensic League, which is what 'NFL' applies to in this debate, he does not qualify as one of the best quarterbacks of the NFL (National Forensic League). The resolution is negated. I thank my opponent for the debate and the readers for the opportunity. I have provided arguments as to why my opponent is incorrect in this debate. Resolution negated.
Brett Favre is one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL.

Brett Favre has become one of the best QuaterBack's in the history of the NFL and I have stats that will back that up. Year Team G Att Comp Pct Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD TD% Int Int% Lng 20+ 40+ Sck SckY Rate TOTAL 273 9,280 5,720 61.6 34.0 65,127 7.0 238.6 464 5.0 310 3.3 99 782 147 469 3,101 85.4 Favre is statistically one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. Favre is the only player to win the AP Most Valuable Player three consecutive times (1995–97.)[6] He led the Packers to seven division championships (1995, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2007), four NFC Championship Games (1995, 1996, 1997, and 2007), winning two (1996 and 1997), and two Super Bowl appearances, winning one (Super Bowl XXXI). He holds many NFL records including: most career touchdown passes (464), most career passing yards (65,127), most career pass completions (5,720), most career pass attempts (9,280), most consecutive starts among NFL quarterbacks (269; 291 total starts including playoffs)--just one away from tying the all-time consecutive starts record for any position-- and most career victories as a starting quarterback (169). www.nfl.com www.wikipedia.com
Brett Favre is one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL.

Now, considering the fact that there are no Quarter Backs in the NFL (National Forensic League) it should be obvious that NFL actually means National Football League. (I know for a fact that there is no QB position in the National Forensic League because I am part of it. ) Here is my definition of NFL: The National Football League (NFL) is the largest professional American football league in the world. [1] It was formed by eleven teams in 1920 as the American Professional Football Association (the league changed the name to the National Football League in 1922). The league currently consists of thirty-two teams from the United States. The league is divided evenly into two conferences — the American Football Conference (AFC) and National Football Conference (NFC), and each conference has four divisions that have 4 teams each. The regular season is a seventeen-week schedule during which each team has one bye week and plays sixteen games. Teams play all three other teams in their division twice. They also play each team from another division in their conference and each team from a division in the opposite conference. The final two games come against the teams in the other two divisions in their conference who finished in the same place from the previous season. (For example, 1st Place teams will play 1st Place teams, 2nd Place teams play 2nd Plays teams. ) The season currently starts on the Thursday night in the first full week of September (the Thursday after Labor Day) and runs weekly to late December or early January. At the end of each regular season, six teams from each conference play in the NFL playoffs, a twelve-team single-elimination tournament that culminates with the championship game, known as the Super Bowl. This game is held at a pre-selected site which is usually a city that hosts an NFL team. Commercials during the Super Bowl tend to be quite popular among the general public. Selected all-star players from both the AFC and NFC meet in the Pro Bowl, held in Honolulu, Hawaii; up to and including 2009, this game took place the weekend after the Super Bowl. In 2010, it will take place the week prior to the Super Bowl, in Miami Gardens, Florida.
You should be allowed to snack in class anytime

no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no uno u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u no u
The War on Drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, and a complete failure

I start back soon as well, and this site is going to be a black hole for my study time... I really enjoy conversing with all of you on here, and no matter how well the debate goes, I always learn some valuable ideas. There is no better way to improve your arguments then to hash it out with someone who has a different perspective than you. After arguing with you guys, it will be a cinch to defeat people in my classes, who may make the mistake of disagreeing with me. If you ever have time leonitus, drop me a debate on anything I disagree with you on, and we can have it out.
Enhanced Interrogation (Torture) does not work effectively as an interrogation technique

I'm not trying to resolution snipe. I meant accurate information. I merely meant to focus on the amount of accurate information. I want to debate that torture provides a higher quantity of accurate information than not. I think we're both aware that inaccurate information is unimportant in terms of this debate and should be left out of the equation. If you want to actually debate this, we can make it 2 rounds and do so, but I certainly won't stop you from forfeiting.
Enhanced Interrogation (Torture) does not work effectively as an interrogation technique

My opponent pointed out an error on my part in the claim; instead of the claim being "effective at gathering information," it should have been "effective at gathering accurate information." Due to this, I am left with an argument that is obviously wrong, as enhanced interrogation techniques do statistically gather more information, be it reliable or unreliable, than other non-abusive techniques. I am not sure how forfeiting works on DDO, but I forfeit; Con wins.
Enhanced Interrogation (Torture) does not work effectively as an interrogation technique

I accept and would like to remind my opponent and the voters that it was specifically stated in round one that the effectiveness of "enhanced interrogation" shall be measured in it's usefulness at gathering information. Whether it is ethical or even whether it has negative side efffects unassociated is beside the point, and should not bear into these arguments. We are merely judging whether on average an enhanced interrogation recieved an equal or greater amount of information than regular interrogation. If after this debate, the voters decide that politely asking a guy where a bomb is as equally effective as repeatedly drowning them until they give you the information. If enhanced interrogation is less effective than politely asking somebody for information, my opponent wins, but if it is more effective than a polite request, I win.
Enhanced Interrogation (Torture) does not work effectively as an interrogation technique

Enhanced Interrogation does not work effectively as an interrogation technique. Hello, I'm new to DDO so please excuse any errors I may make in setting up this debate. Round 1 will be the acceptance of the debate, Rounds 2 and 3 will focus on claims and counterclaims, the actual proposition of arguments, and Round 4 will be a final conclusion. This debate is not about whether or not torture is ethically or morally correct, but rather about the effectiveness of torture itself at gathering information.
Should same sex marriage be aloud

The world is far from underpopulated, the balance is not there. Over population is more of a worry than under population because it harms people that are alive more by taking away valuable resources while the survival of our species by continuation is just egotistic. I think you should worry more about the people that are already alive than the people that aren't. How would the world grow back? What? The world does not need us. Like I said, meaning is subjective, and I don't know how a man is meant just for a woman and vica versa when there are many people that can grow strong affections for the same sex like myself. God didn't make anyone just as Unicorns don't make rainbows. You have the BOP to prove God even exists and made Adam and Eve. A written book AKA the Bible, is not evidence for the supernatural because it is not supernatural. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, anecdotes are not proper evidence. People of the same sex have also been together for a long time, but it doesn't even matter how long people of whatever sex have been together as we have evolved as a species, or even if you don't believe in evolution we are beyond natural impulses and instincts to an extent and realize how antiquated and ineffective, even detrimental, they become in a civilized and well developed society. http://www.zo.utexas.edu...
Should same sex marriage be aloud

Even though that is true you still need to consider that if this does become a normal thing in life then how will the world repopulate. Yes now the world is over populated but what will happen when the world becomes under populated then what? How will the world grow back from things like that? The answer is for a man and a women to repopulate in order to keep balance. It's weird because a man is meant for a women and a women is meant for a man that why man and women have been together for so long, don't you want to know why man and women have been together for so long it's because they were meant for each other not because they were forced to. Like I said in the beginning of this debate, God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Aden.
Should same sex marriage be aloud

Why would it be so great? The reduction on overpopulation, and the fact that two adults who love each other are able to got married as another adult couple can. I suppose you are saying weird as in unusual, but there are many who partake in this, and you just because something is unusual it does not therefor mean that it is wrong. How does it go against life? Draining resources by the population having too many children does not promote sustainable life in the long run.
Should same sex marriage be aloud

Should same sex marriage be aloud NO. god made Adam and Eve not Adam and Aden. There is a reason why male and female are aloud to make life its because they were meant for each other. A man and a man cant have a child with each other and neither can a women so why should they be together this is why the world is getting so fucked up because people like this the people that are the same gender and want to be together.