BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No Idea

a) Although con has not used the word 'technically', nor 'define', as in my latter argument, I again argue that my opponent has used the word "creates", in this sense defined as 'technically defines'. I can only ask con to review his opponent's arguments more carefully: "We can only assume and conclude from this that formulation of ideas is what technically defines, or as con put it, creates, the difference between our species and every other species."c) Con here states: "Naturally it follows that in an imperfect world having people thinking and coming up with ideas, mental faculties will be intact for longer, than in a 'perfect' world, where people have done away with thinking, leaving their mental abilities to deteriorate with the passing of time", wholly contradicting my earlier argument: "The ideal/perfect universe would have no need for ideas, or even creatures". A perfect world has no need for people or any creatures, and therefore "amnesia" or "mental disorders in general" are unable to exist without a host. May I remind con once again that this debate is not focused on ideas' improvement to our world, but on the greatness of a universe with ideas in ratio to the greatness of a universe without ideas. I shall here use simple maths to clarify to con the focus of the debate: (Infinity [the greatness of a perfect universe with no ideas] + The sum of greatness of all possible universes without ideas [low in comparison to with ideas])/The number of all different possible universes without ideas = Infinity(The sum of the greatness of all possible universes with ideas [an undoubtedly finite number])/The number of all different possible universes with ideas = A finite number.Therefore, the average universe without ideas is infinitely greater than the average universe with ideas.Therefore having no idea is better than having an idea.Here, greater means better as opposed to larger.Again, I ask con to review my arguments more carefully.Con's sources, popular as they are, are unreliable, where any person is able to post information with sources of unknown reliability, thus producing unstable (and therefore unreliable) information. However, my information is purely from the fundaments of the debate itself, the most reliable possible source, due to its unconditional necessity to the debate.
No Idea

a) As my opponent has repeated, "the fact that we humans can think logically, leading to formulation of ideas is what creates the difference between us and rest of the species", we can only assume and conclude from this that formulation of ideas is what technically defines, or as con put it, creates, the difference between our species and every other species. However, that technical definition between species is not of properties but of the technical definition between species. My tautology is only to confirm to my opponent the difference between definition and property. If con were to state, "Ideas are a property in which humans have and all other species lack or are unable to formulate", his argument would be valid and accurate. However, what technically defines, or creates, the difference between our species and every other species is not speaking of properties, as con suggests, but of definition.In my defence, in none of my arguments have I ever used the word 'technically'. I have never 'defined' an idea as how Pro has projected it. My use of the word 'difference' is in a broad sense, not going into technical details about how we are unlike the rest. Think of it this way; if intelligent life from outer space were to land on planet Earth, the first difference they would notice between humans and the beasts would be that we think, formulate ideas and thereby communicate with each other on an effective level which has benefitted us, putting us above all forms of life . The possibility of interbreeding and any other difference would take longer to discover. Hence, my argument stands unrefuted.c) This debate is not about the difference between our world with ideas and our world without ideas, may con be reminded, but whether 'a' universe with ideas is better than a universe without ideas. My opponent is, despite this, only applying this argument to our world. I am not denying that ideas are an improvement to our world, but that they are a perfection in an ideal universe, and therefore a universe without ideas, on average, is infinitely better than than a universe with ideas. In conclusion, a lack of ideas is better, on average, than ideas.At this stage, I would like to bring to the attention of my opponent,certain facts aimed at showing how the lack of ideas in a world can prove to be terribly detrimental. Thinking and stimulating the mental processes of the brain have shown to be definitely helpful in preventing amnesia[1] and keeping away mental disorders in general[2]. In simple language, the more you use your brain, the longer it will last you. Naturally it follows that in an imperfect world having people thinking and coming up with ideas, mental faculties will be intact for longer, than in a 'perfect' world, where people have done away with thinking, leaving their mental abilities to deteriorate with the passing of time. My argument, in this case also, holds good.Your turn Pro.Good luck.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
No Idea

a) As my opponent has repeated, "the fact that we humans can think logically, leading to formulation of ideas is what creates the difference between us and rest of the species", we can only assume and conclude from this that formulation of ideas is what technically defines, or as con put it, creates, the difference between our species and every other species. However, that technical definition between species is not of properties but of the technical definition between species. My tautology is only to confirm to my opponent the difference between definition and property. If con were to state, "Ideas are a property in which humans have and all other species lack or are unable to formulate", his argument would be valid and accurate. However, what technically defines, or creates, the difference between our species and every other species is not speaking of properties, as con suggests, but of definition. c) This debate is not about the difference between our world with ideas and our world without ideas, may con be reminded, but whether 'a' universe with ideas is better than a universe without ideas. My opponent is, despite this, only applying this argument to our world. I am not denying that ideas are an improvement to our world, but that they are a perfection in an ideal universe, and therefore a universe without ideas, on average, is infinitely better than than a universe with ideas. In conclusion, a lack of ideas is better, on average, than ideas.
No Idea

Different species are defined by which animals they can breed with, for example, a human cannot breed with a hippopotamus. However, separate species that breed interdependently are defined as separate species by the principal that their offspring are unable to breed, for example, a donkey and a horse can breed to produce a mule, but the mule is unable to produce offspring of its own. What con believes defines the difference between species is their abilities. However, this is a mere property of the species. I am merely reinforcing my former argument and if con wishes to prevent the development of this argument he may not put forward a counterargument. I would like to make it really clear that I am not trying to deny this difference of breeding capabilities between man and beast my opponent's argument is so vehemently trying to prove time and again. I am merely pointing out that, in terms of the position on the evolutionary ladder, the fact that we humans can think logically, leading to formulation of ideas is what creates the difference between us and rest of the species. As this is a debate on ideas, the word 'difference' was always meant to imply a disparity in intellectual capablities between man and beast, not any other disparity per se. I agree that it was a poor former argument, though worth the mention, and con's counterargument is accurate. Voters take note. My argument is not that our world could be better with no ideas, but that the best possible world would be without ideas. Con's former argument is that ideas are good, not that ideas are an improvement in an imperfect world. I have never said anything about ideas being 'good', as such; but let us assume that my description of their advantages brands them as something 'good'. And by virtue of being good, they spread goodness in this world. How? Goodness by inspiring, changing lives (I did use the word 'good' here, though that was for the quality of resultant life), revoltionizing, stimuating thinking and by solving problems, all, which seem to promise improvement in our world, which is imperfect, no doubt. So my argument is pretty much saying that ideas are an improvement, disproving Pro's claim that it's not. Also, I'd like to add this. I don't see where Pro's argument is getting at by saying that the best possible world would be without ideas. Has Pro seen such a world? And even if he has, he continues to live in ours. Is trying to attain perfection by giving up something which would actually help us attain it, the right approach? It's like saying "Roger Federer never practices as he is perfect. So in order to get perfect, I won't practice. " Get my point? Also, I would like to encourage con to keep the debate formal. Point duly noted and accepted.
No Idea

a) Different species are defined by which animals they can breed with, for example, a human cannot breed with a hippopotamus. However, separate species that breed interdependently are defined as separate species by the principal that their offspring are unable to breed, for example, a donkey and a horse can breed to produce a mule, but the mule is unable to produce offspring of its own. What con believes defines the difference between species is their abilities. However, this is a mere property of the species. I am merely reinforcing my former argument and if con wishes to prevent the development of this argument he may not put forward a counterargument. b) I agree that it was a poor former argument, though worth the mention, and con's counterargument is accurate. c) My argument is not that our world could be better with no ideas, but that the best possible world would be without ideas. Con's former argument is that ideas are good, not that ideas are an improvement in an imperfect world. Also, I would like to encourage con to keep the debate formal.
No Idea

My arguments, straight up."Thinking may separate us literally from other creatures, however, in the modern world where technicality is becoming ever more important, unfortunately for your ideas, technically, the fact that we cannot breed with the other creatures, where our offspring is able to breed, is what separates us from other creatures. That we can think and have intellectual ideas is a mere property of our species, not a definition."If you notice closely, my opinion of 'thinking' being the difference between us , the human race, and all other forms of life was said along with two lines inter-relating the concepts of an idea and the process of thinking itself. So naturally, it would follow that what I meant was that the difference arises due to a combination of these two concepts. While you may be focussing on the possibility of interbreeding as a major difference, it has nothing to do with how we have attained the position of the most intelligent creature on planet Earth. This 'difference' in intellectual capabilities is what holds greatest importance and not whether it is possible to obtain a freak of a monster by crossing a human with a hippopotamus.Also you say something really freaky about our offspring being able to breed with animals but not us. Anyhow it comes across that way.b) Although I foresee the counterargument to this argument, it may be worth mentioning it. The word "can", though suggesting potential, has no necessity to mean 'does'. Yeah. My counter argument for this argument is pretty simple. 'Can' is definitely a precursor of 'does', and that makes this argument tilt in my favor. Because if there's a 'can' there are all the chances of it becoming a 'does'. But if there's no 'can', or worse, if there's a 'can't', chances of a transformation to 'does' bleaken, and fizzle out tragically. Also, I'd like to point out, the word 'may' used in this very point by my opponent also suggests potential, but in the context he's used it, does it?c) The ideal/perfect universe would have no need for ideas, or even creatures. The ideal universe is an eternal bliss and nothing else. An infinitely 'good' universe, being infinite, overwhelms all other possible universes in terms of how 'good' they are. Therefore, the it is better for to have no need for ideas than to have ideas.I agree totally with your views on an ideal universe and how the idea of an idea would be redundant in it (though if in an ideal universe myself, I would still encourage ideas of the creative sense; I would write, I would play my guitar). But your claim that it is better to have no need for ideas than to have ideas is a load of bull, as our world, as we know it, is nowhere close to ideal/perfect. So till it is, we better keep thinking. And we better keep coming up with ideas.The floor is yours Pro.
No Idea

I suppose I should argue against con's pointless argument with a pointless argument. Here goes.. Con here states a) thinking is what makes us different from other creatures and b) the word 'can' several times. He also suggests throughout his argument that c) an idea is a good thing. a) Thinking may separate us literally from other creatures, however, in the modern world where technicality is becoming ever more important, unfortunately for your ideas, technically, the fact that we cannot breed with the other creatures, where our offspring is able to breed, is what separates us from other creatures. That we can think and have intellectual ideas is a mere property of our species, not a definition. b) Although I foresee the counterargument to this argument, it may be worth mentioning it. The word "can", though suggesting potential, has no necessity to mean 'does'. c) The ideal/perfect universe would have no need for ideas, or even creatures. The ideal universe is an eternal bliss and nothing else. An infinitely 'good' universe, being infinite, overwhelms all other possible universes in terms of how 'good' they are. Therefore, the it is better for to have no need for ideas than to have ideas.
No Idea

Have an idea. An idea can change your life. It can change the life of others For the good, hopefully If it's for the bad, someone else is sure to come up with an idea which counters yours. An idea can inspire. An idea can spark a revolutionary fire. An idea makes you think. An idea can make others think. Without thinking there would be no ideas. Without ideas there would be no thinking. And thinking is what makes us different from other creatures. An idea makes you believe. An idea can make others believe in you. An idea could be the answer to a problem. An idea could be the precursor of a solution. So, if you have no idea, You better get one.
Contraception is a right.

I would like to conclude by thanking my opponent for allowing me to debate with them. I would like to start off by pointing out how my opponent blatantly refused answering questions I posed before them, this should either be looked upon as lack of the ability to counter my argument, or simply stalling. My opponent also did not show much evidence arguing their point. Contraception strips the right of life, stated by pro as a given right, from a possible human being, there inducing on other rights
Contraception is a right.

It is unfortunate that you are unable to create an argument, and instead choose to refute what I clearly said. I asked a question, and I asked two more in the previous round. Perhaps you did not read them so I ask them again:Do you agree that the right to life is a given right?Does contraception prevent the possibility of a new entity of human?If these questions are not answered, I will assume you are purposefully ignoring me, stalling, and therefore should be seen as forfeiting the debate.
Contraception is a right.

The problem that lies here is our each individual definition of a right. You are using the moral standards of a right, however morals are relative. We each have different morals. On top of this, this topic is quite vague. I am going to assume you are arguing this: Women have the essential right to contraception, that is, if they wish to use contraception they may do so and shall not be prevented from doing so. Question: Does contraception prevent the possibility of a new entity of human life?
Contraception is a right.

Thank you for being a nice person. To me, a right is something that belongs to each lviving creature. A right is something given to us by God and affirmed by a democratic government. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We also have the right to be secure in our person. How can a woman do that if she is forced to have an abortion, or give birth? I am against most abortions, but for any contraception that works before fertilization.
OS X Snow Leopard was the best release of OS X.

Why I think Snow Leopard was the best.Snow Leopard was a huge improvement over Leopard. Thanks to Apple switching its API to Cocoa for most of its programs. UI lags were pretty much gone, and everything felt fast, even on my 2006 Macbook. Boot times were dramatically decreased, and shutdowns took about 4 seconds. Because, Apple decided to make OS X similar to iOS, they added a bunch of features, which didn't really appeal to all users. This made everything slower for people who still were using older Macs. Stablility was also a big concern, as the newer versions often crashed.http://www.apple.com...;
Dota 2 is a better game than League of Legends

Resolution: Dota 2 is a better game than League of Legends DEFINITIONS: League of Legends: a multiplayer online battle arena video game developed and published by Riot Games for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X, inspired by the popular Defense of the Ancients map for Warcraft III. Dota 2: a multiplayer online battle arena video game developed by Valve Corporation and the stand-alone sequel to the Defense of the Ancients mod for Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and its expansion pack, The Frozen Throne. MOBA: Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA), also known as action real-time strategy (ARTS), is a sub-genre of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre, in which often two teams of players compete with each other in discrete games, with each player controlling a single character through an RTS-style interface BOP is shared. Both sides must present a case.
Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States

I said that my arguments are still relevent because they are in other evidence that is from 2014 and 15. My evidence may be from 1999, 2011, and 2006 but It is also in recent evidence from this year. And I do know what you are talking about but you brought new evidence in that speech you gave a from round 2 and I re-read your round one evidence a whole bunch of times and saw nothing that involded WW1 and sending students to warzones. You didn't say any of that. And we are talking about Standarized test, NOT WW1 and warzones. You also didn't resond to my round 3 argument so I have nothing to argue with you except for the fact that the judge should vote Standarized testing good because Students need this is they want to get smarter and learn more stuff. You should vote this because i'm pretty sure that since my opponent didn't back up half their arguments in round 3. That they dropped a lot of there arguments. Yes I may have only dropped one. But when they didn't back up their argument in round 3 they dropped it. I have nothing to respond to in there round 3 argument.
Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States

My opponent simply doesn't understand anything that I am claiming. He says he can have evidence from the last century, while I cannot have some from 3 years ago; he is saying that because I never specifically said standardised testing any tests I say must not be standardised tests (yet, they actually are, it should be inferred); he is saying that what I am claiming is false because it's dumb; and because I don't specify that the US government is doing something then I can't have any ground.If you read my evidence and my case with a careful eye you should know literally everything I am talking about -- taking everything out of context and reading incarefully means you don't get what I am saying.Extend all rebuttals & defense, they were never really contested.
Resolved: On balance, standardized testing is beneficial to K-12 education in the United States

Ok first i would like to say that i never said you couldn't use non-2015 evidence. I said that your 2013 evidence is from almost 3 years ago. What I'm trying to say is that its been almost 3 years ago meaning a lot has changed in that 2-3 years that evidence was released. And yes I have used '99 '11' and 06 evidence but the evidence is still ok because it is in other evidence that I have read. For my Get Congress out of Standarised testing argument when I say it build memorisation I'm saying that when you take a test lets say in english you want to know that vocab word or part of that story meaning you need to use that memorisation skill to remember what word goes with what and what is going on in the story. And also I did say standarized testing can be good and I did stat examples. I said and I quotes "progress of a child's education and determining where to go next." and "tests aim to determine how a classroom, a school or a district stands in educating children." So what you said about me not giving examples how is can be good is wrong. Because apparently you didn't read that text right. What you said responding to my McWhorter evidence. About the test in New York, no one would know that a saucer goes with a cup. It's the 21st century. I would have put table and i'm not black. And that test you never said if it was a standarized test. You just said is was a test. We are talking about Standarized testing!!! Your 2nd contention- You said Data is free to give away to the governmental agencies that exist. And anyone can ask for is if they say it is for eduational purposes, but who would want to take someones data that just stupid.And last you said WE have the ability to send off students to a warzone that we din;t deem as necessary or benefiial to the US. But who is we, who are you saying can do that. And sending students to warzones has nothing to do with how standarized testing is good or bad. And I never dropped it becuase you never said anything about sending students of to warzones in any of you evidence. I went back and read your evidence and saw nothing about sending them of to warzones!!!!