BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Geico mascot is based off of a real animal species (I'm Con)

When looking at the picture of the Geico mascot, it may appear to be some kind of lizard like creature. But lizards consist of a diverse group including over 6,000 species[1]. Here are some examples of different species of lizards: Veiled Chameleon [2] Water Monitor [2] Mangrove Monitor [2] My opponent must show the Geico mascot is based off of a species of animal, not just that that they are based off of a suborder such as the lizard. Since the burden of proof is on pro, and that there is not much I can do to prove a negative without relying on rebuttals, I will now give my opponent a chance to provide evidence for if there is in fact a species that the Geico mascot is based off of. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.lizardtypes.com...
The Geico mascot is based off of a real animal species (I'm Con)

Resolution: The Geico mascot is based off of a real animal species Definition: The Geico mascot refers to this: BoP: Pro has burden of proof Rules 1. First round acceptance - no arguments are to be made in the first round 2. In-debate citations - citations used must be provided within the text of the debate 3. No semantics - no using obviously unfair semantics 4. No "K"s by Pro - Pro can't use the letter K anywhere within the debate 5. No new arguments in the last round - in the last round, rebuttals are allowed, but new arguments are not 6. Rule violation results in forfeit - violating a rule is an automatic 7 point loss
The Geico mascot is based off of a real animal species (I'm Con)

As I have stated previously the fact that the Geico lizard shares all its major characteristics with P. madagascariensis shows that this species has formed a strong base from the mascots overall design. These similarities have all been conceded my con and are: - Size - Body Colour - Red patches - Shape and colour of eyes Con now says that that mascot shares "many characteristics with one of the 6,000 species of lizards" however the attempt in the previous round to describe these characteristics addapted from other lizards was dropped after being rebutted by me and no new possible features have been proposed. As I said earlier, the madagascariesis and the Geico mascot are no completely identical, but the features of the Geico mascot that are inconsistent are elements of anthropomorphism: bipedalism, speech, pentadactyl limbs. Since these features do not come from another lizard and are only added in order to allow the mascot to be a more effective advertising tool it is then reasonable to state that the mascot has drawn its design from P. madagascariesis and is therefore based of a real species of lizard. My gratitude to con for what has been a light and entertaining debate!
Alchohal

http://www.healthchecksystems.com... has a list of harmful effects of drinking here let me share a few Arthritis Cancer Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Heart Disease Hyperglycermia Nervous Disorders Obesity would you rather be sober and happy. Or be extremely happy for a short time and have these sicknesses. It is your choice although drinking may have a few good effects, the problems that is causes completely overpower the good effects.
Alchohal

Blood poisoning:My opponent has no sources saying it will harm anyone at any time unlike me who has a source "howitworks.com" which states that drinking helps the heart and blood.Poor decisions:You must realize that any driver at night when the most drunk people are driving should be driving cautiously anyway and having drunk drivers on the road only encourages the fact of driving cautiously.My opponent has also dropped the fact of alcohol creating happiness and relief of stress.extend all arguments
Alchohal

First of all I would like to point out that my opponent is calling me an alcoholic which is completely false. I did not post any argument on the last round simply because my opponent didn't give me a single argument or argue against, other than "drinking is stupid", so I found a quote calling him stupid. Blood poisoning:Howstuffworks.com states that alcohol is actually good for your heart and can reduce the likelyhood of getting heart related illnesses.Drunk driving and poor judgement:It is the persons choice to drink in the first place and everyone knows the risks of drinking. Also the normal driver that isn't drunk or drinking should drive more cautiously at night or don't drive at all. If you are driving in the middle of the night you shouldnt drive the same as you do in the day.
Cell Phone Usage in School

It would also give those students who can afford Smart hones an inherent advantage in schooling, while leaving poorer students at a disadvantage. " This is true, but I'm sure arrangements could be made for those less wealthy children to share with another student, not only evening out the playing field but also helping grow bonds of trust between students. "This could only apply to students who have access to Smart hones. Not all do." This is also true, but consider the fact that later in life, if someone cannot afford a smartphone, their lifestyle is most likely one where they wouldn't actually have to know any thing that would require the aid of a phone. "Additionally, this only reinforces how to find an answer, not why an answer is correct." While some answers may not be correct, this could teach them not to trust everything they read on the internet, and this would also give the experience in how to check sources/facts. Unrelated, but still relevant to this debate, this would also help children with learning difficulties as it would be easier to take notes and store knowledge on a smartphone.
Cell Phone Usage in School

"Some teachers say that if the Student was taking a test and they used their phone to "Cheat", it would hurt their education." The act of using the phone is cheating by definition, as there are regulations in place which ban it's use during exams. It's cheating regardless of the teacher's personal opinion, as in most cases it's school or district policy, not class-room policy. "But say 30 years later, they have to use that knowledge, couldn't they just whip out their phone and do exactly the same thing they did 30 years ago in school" This could only apply to students who have access to Smartphones. Not all do. Additionally, this only reinforces how to find an answer, not why an answer is correct. "Letting Students use their phones in School would allow them to get better grades easier, and give them an even easier way to access their what they learned in School later " It would also give those students who can afford Smartphones an inherent advantage in schooling, while leaving poorer students at a disadvantage. Testing is also a measurement of your school's performance, not just you. You cannot collect accurate feedback on the efficacy of a class if it's not based on what is being taught to you. This would base testing on what you could Google, offering no feedback concerning the teacher or classroom materials.
Cell Phone Usage in School

Some teachers say that if the Student was taking a test and they used their phone to "Cheat", it would hurt their education. But say 30 years later, they have to use that knowledge, couldn't they just whip out their phone and do exactly the same thing they did 30 years ago in school. Letting Students use their phones in School would allow them to get better grades easier, and give them an even easier way to access their what they learned in School later in life.
The State of Israel, as is, has a right to continue to exist.

Please note that this is not whether the State of Israel should have been formulated. Rather, it should be approached as such; that once the State exists, as it does now, should it be discontinued because it has no right to continue, or should it be allowed to continue because it has a right, as is, to continue as such. There are two ways to view the right to land. According to both, Israel, as a Jewish State, has a right to continue to exist. 1.Land belongs to the people who settled it or claimed it for settlement first. This is a popular view for Palestinian Arabs, followed by the claim they got there first. However, there is more than sufficient historical evidence that the area was originally settled by a group that are the direct forerunners of today's Jewish population. The "Palestinians" from whom they conquered the land have no traceable descendants. Additionally, the land has had a Jewish presence almost continuously for almost the last 3300 years. Thus, if anyone has a preexisting claim over it, Jews have. 2.Land belongs to whoever lives there. In a democracy (and many other forms of government), land belongs to whoever lives there, and the government follows the will of the majority of people. This applies even if the majority changes due to an excess of different people moving in (except for an invading army, because they are really just one entity, as they are obliged to follow the will of their commander.) The majority of Israel is Jews; therefore it should be a Jewish State.
Batman is better than Superman

Reasons why Superman is superior to Batman: 1. He could destroy Batman (and basically anything else) with a punch. You listed this as a weakness, but, in the end, superman wins most of his battles. 2. He doesn't have to rely on anyone else (Alfred) in order to get the job done. He does work with other superheroes, but he's more of a helper for them than they are for him. 3. Superman's back would not have been able to be broken by Bane. And Batman's entire body would be easily broken by Doomsday... And Bane... And pretty much anyone else that gets a hold of him
Batman is better than Superman

Here I will list a few reasons as to why Batman is the superior to SupermanBatman is SmarterSuperman is meant to be super-intelligent, but his solution to every problem is either charging straight at it with his fists up or throwing things. If any Kryptonian kindergarten teachers had survived, Superman would spend most of his life in timeout. That's why his most famous villain is mastermind Lex Luthor: Someone has to do interesting things to keep the story moving. But because evil plans end the instant Superman finds the planner, they're based on distraction and deception, so we get to follow a confused man who mindlessly punches everything for four issues until he stumbles into someone who knows what he's doing. That's the exact plot of ending up in a mental institution.Batman has a better messageAnother odd point for a man dressed as a giant domme-animal. But Batman's core message is that anyone can reach for the stars if they're kicked in the @ss at escape velocity. His whole point is being better than superheroes despite not having superpowers. His lesson is "Life sucks, wear a helmet, then install bat-ears and sonar technology into the helmet so you can track life down and make it swallow its own sucking tongue." Batman worked and learned to be everything he is, while Clark Kent has to pretend he wasn't just born better than everyone else. Sure, Bruce inherited infinite dollars, but that's only because a janitor of vengeance working overtime to afford moparangs isn't as cool. Batman penniless and alone kicks just as much @ss (and has been in at least three story arcs). Superman is meant to represent everything humanity can strive to be, the pinnacle of selflessness, but he only reinforces the lesson "If you weren't born to the right parents, you are sh!t out of luck." Which is a weird angle for someone meant to embody the American dream.
The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew From 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.

---Considering my opponent has forfeited the last round, all of my arguments still stand. ---I'd like to briefly review my points. ---Point 1: Nothing productive happens between the hours of 11:00 p. m. and 5:00 a. m. that is unsupervised. I'd like to use three scenarios to further explain this point. One: There are three guys at an unsupervised party. Let's call them Adam, Jake, and Mason. (No specific people. Any group of friends with these names is completely coincedental). Jake has a black suburban and is driving the three guys. At the party, the guys both drank and smoked weed. They now decide to drive home, which is quite a ways away. Another group of guys catches up with them. They decide to race. Adam, Jake, and Mason hit a small family, killing the parents and seriously injuring the kids in the backseat. The boys are arrested and the kids are now orphans. This is NOT bettering society in any way. It IS harming society. Two: A guy, Landon, is out seeing his girlfriend, Elizabeth. Landon picks up Elizabeth and they go to an unsupervised party. There is drinking, smoking, pot, and fighting. Landon and Elizabeth do none of these things. They then leave the party to go to Elizabeth's house. Elizabeth's parents aren't home. The couple simply watches a movie and goes to sleep, Elizabeth in her bed and Landon on the living room couch. By going to the party, they were neither harming or helping society. When they returned home, even though Landon was at Elizabeth's house and it WAS unsupervised, they were following curfew. Landon, by staying the night, followed curfew. Three: A youth leader takes his youth group is out to do some late-night witnessing. They ARE being productive, and they ARE supervised. ---Point 2: A curfew reduces the opportunity for teens to commit crimes and also protects them from becoming crime victims. I'll use one scenario. One: A middle-aged guy, Anthony, wants to kill a younger guy, Jeremy, for getting his daughter pregnant. Jeremy is very violent and will fight Anthony to his death. Jeremy is walking down the street to meet Anthony in an alleyway around midnight one night. A cop sees Jeremy and takes him home. Anthony didn't commit a crime against the teen, Jeremy. And the teen didn't commit a crime against Anthony. ---Point 3: A curfew prevents vandalism, loitering on public properties, and truancy. It's simple. By not staying out all night, there won't be as much vandalism, loitering, or truancy. Simply because there won't be teenagers out to vandalize. They won't be bored and have to resort to loitering. And they won't be tired, too cool, etc. to go to school. ---It is for these reasons I am pro. The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew.
The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew From 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.

---Seeing as my opponent has not posted any argument, just attacked my own, I must only defend/build my argument. ---Point 1: Nothing productive happens between the hours of 11:00 p. m. and 5:00 a. m. that is unsupervised. Productive is a positive thing, not negative. Therefore, if something happening between these hours is not negative, it is NOT productive unless it is positive. My opponent used the example, "A 19 year old is out seeing his gf. " Well, if a 19-year-old male is out seeing his girlfriend, wouldn't they be at one of their houses? If not, where would they be? What would they be doing? Maybe at a party. A party where there could be underage drinking, illegal substances, and violence. This is certainly harming society. If the couple is simply at home, my opponent is correct. They are not harming society at all. However, they are not bettering society. Therefore, they are not doing something productive. Plus, wouldn't they be supervised if they were at home? I said that is unsupervised. Therefore, my first point still stands. ---Point 2: A curfew reduces the opportunity for teens to commit crimes and also protects them from becoming crime victims. . http://www.libraryindex.com... My opponent says my first article just made the claim. It did not prove anything. Here is a new article. "By my opponents stance,she would support the government taking away hang gliding, bungee jumping, smoking, etc. " What does this have to do with the debate? NOTHING. Therefore, this statement shouldn't even be said. Also, I would like to point out that the curfew applies to ALL YOUTH, not 16 to 21. I said roughly 11 to 21. This point still stands. ---Point 3: A curfew prevents vandalism, loitering on public properties, and truancy. My opponent is somewhat correct, these happen when no one is looking. However, my opponent says, "Vandalism, truancy, and loitering don't happen when it gets dark outside. " It does. It happens when people aren't looking, right? That is mostly at night. Most people are at home between 11:00 p. m. and 5:00 a. m. , so that's when people wouldn't be looking. Therefore, it would happen most during those times. My opponent says the only way to stop it is to make it illegal. Isn't it? You can get in major trouble for vandalism, I know. Doesn't that mean it's illegal? Therefore, a curfew would help prevent this because people are going to do it whether it is illegal or not. It's illegal to drink under the age of 21, but people still do it. Therefore, this point also still stands.
The United States Should Have A Juvenile Curfew From 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.

---I'd like to start out with definitions. -Juvenile: a young person; youth. -Curfew: an order establishing a specific time in the evening after which certain regulations apply, esp. that no civilians or other specified group of unauthorized persons may be outdoors or that places of public assembly must be closed. -Youth: the period of life from puberty to the attainment of full growth; adolescence. ---Now, I'd like to clarify the topic. By saying the U.S. should have a juvenile curfew, I mean every city, town, etc. should implement this curfew. Persons not following the curfew will have a punishment of some sort. However, that is NOT the debate. The debate is on whether or not we should have a curfew. Juveniles are roughly between the ages of 11 and 21. However, people younger than 11 that are NOT with a parent should follow this curfew. If the juveniles ARE with a parent, the curfew DOES NOT apply. The curfew applies to juveniles that are ALONE. Any questions, please comment. ---I'd now like to state my three points. 1. Nothing productive happens between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. that is unsupervised. 2. A curfew reduces the opportunity for teens to commit crimes and also protects them from becoming crime victims. http://www.associatedcontent.com... 3. A curfew prevents vandalism, loitering on public properties, and truancy. http://www.crimefreeaz.com... ---I will explain my points in my next argument, and attack my opponent's.
It is better to believe in the God of the Bible than to believe in Allah

Let's try again... The Debate is intended for a Muslim to take the Con position. If I believe in the God of the Bible and die, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief and will be rewarded by gaining a life everlasting with God in Heaven. If I believe in the God of the Bible and die and rejected Islam, then I will not be held accountable for disbelief or anything else because Allah is All Merciful and therefore forgives ALL sins. I have nothing to worry about. If a Muslim dies, and the God of the Bible is the true God then he or she will be held accountable for disbelief and will be judged accordingly. Something to worry about. If a Muslim die, and the God of the Bible is not the true God, then he or she will go to Heaven and will not be held accountable for anything. Nothing to worry about. The emphasis is on what Islam require people to do to be saved as opposed to what the Bible teach one has to do to be saved and which view is more logical and reasonable. The emphasis is also not on whether or not Allah is the God of the Bible because it is clear that Allah do not beget and therefore the Father and Son cannot be Allah. Rebuttals and arguments can be done from the first round. Thanks.
In 2019 government should be of BJP

This is a normative resolution, so the burdens are equal. I’ll first respond to Pro’s claims and then build my own case.A. RebuttalPro first argues that India needs a government that can take bold decisions. There’s two issues with this claim. First, it’s not meaningful or substantive. Pro doesn’t explain what it means to take a “bold decision,” and why that kind of decision is a good thing. Second, it’s not unique to the BJP. It’s Pro’s burden of proof to explain why the BJP is more likely than any other political party to take these decisions if it wins the 2019 election.Then, Pro argues that the government shouldn’t legislate to protect “particular sections” of society. That’s ridiculous. I argue that the role of government is the protection of marginalized groups within society – the only reason we accept the government’s legitimacy is for the protection of those who are weak. India has a history of discrimination – against women, against caste minorities, against religious minorities, and against the LGBT community. We need to fix that. Insofar as Pro concedes that the BJP doesn’t want policies that protect any particular groups, vote Con.Third, Pro argues that infrastructure development is important. Many parties have comprehensive infrastructure plans, including the main Opposition party right now, the Indian National Congress. [1] Pro needs to explain why this is unique to the BJP.B. Positive ArgumentsThe BJP government has undermined the protection of minorities. It has had a history of opposing the LGBT community. [2] The Minister for Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi, has been known to make sexist remarks, suggesting gender-based curfews in colleges due to “hormonal outbursts” of women [3] and opposing paternity leave due to a patriarchal conception of gender roles. [4]In addition, a BJP government means increased violence against religious minorities – because religious extremist groups are bolstered under the Hindu nationalist rhetoric of the BJP government, and because the BJP has been reluctant to condemn such activities. The BJP government has been complicit in violence before – consider the 2002 Gujarat riots. Martha Nussbaum explains, “There is by now a broad consensus that the Gujarat violence was a form of ethnic cleansing, that in many ways it was premeditated, and that it was carried out with the complicity of the state government and officers of the law.” [5][1] https://www.inc.in...[2] https://www.firstpost.com...[3] https://www.deccanchronicle.com...[4] https://scroll.in...[5] Martha Nussbaum, The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India’s Future
The Bible is Unreliable

The Bible is Unreliable Hello DDO, it is MilitantAtheist and in this debate, I will attempt to show how the Bible is unreliable. Structure Round 1 Will be for acceptance only, NO ARGUMENTSRound 2: Opening argumentsRound 3: First rebuttalsRound 4: Second rebuttalsRound 5: Closing arguments and last rebuttals. Rules1. Good conduct must be shown from BOTH sides.2. Neither side can state why the voters should vote for them until the last round. 3. Any breach in terms, rules, or structures will result in forfeiting the entire debate.4. At any time, if one side has good reason to believe the terms have been breached, he/she can declare victory in the next round.5. Whoever accepts this debate MUST be a Christian. Thank you to whoever accepts this challenge. Good luck and may the best debater win! 6. Forfeited arounds will result in an immediate 7 points to the opponent!