BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Jochem the Savior vs. Lance the God Slayer

Lets Debate, I will debate for Jochem the Savior in this all out fight argument. Any of theirs forms are valid as long as you have sufficient proof that can support your argument. While Jochem the Savior has Indestructible Defence. Good Luck to anybody who will answer this debate. One More thing Characters have Infinite Chakra. We will be fighting in the Anime World.
Jochem the Savior vs. Lance the God Slayer

Definition of "everyone" Pronoun Every person. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Conclusion: Lance the godslayer, will defeat Jochem the Savior, in the midst of the battlefield. I'd like to ask how I have cheated, but sadly this is the last round. I followed the flow of the debate, in my sense and the initial logic of why my character would beat the opposition's is present in my arguments. Conclusion (battle): Lance the godslayer will summon the Gates of Olympus for the preparation of Jochem the Savior's attack. Jochem tries to attack the Gates, yet to no avail. I simply counter-attack with Reality Warp, taking into consideration the past argument, Jochem's armor will not be affected, yet Jochem himself will be. After the effects of Reality Warp Jochem fails to exist any longer, but his armor stays intact. I conclude, that you pathetically tried to defeat my character, yet did not succeed. That conclusion of yours is biased beyond compare and I conclude that Lance the godlsayer will slay Jochem the Savior, like every other adversary he came upon. (Who's Jochem the Savior, did he even exist? No, he doesn't exist, thanks to Lance the godlayer)
Jochem the Savior vs. Lance the God Slayer

I'm Sorry Lance but that was a closing argument in a sense that you can never beat me. Everyone's Conclusion: I win. You Cheated a lot of times, you have failed to prove that you can beat Jochem the Savior in all out battle. You have not followed the rules, you lost your arguments. None of Skills/Attributes work against my character. Thanks for accepting this debate I Conclude that you have no chance to win against me and my character, and that I win this debate. Commentators and Voters: Choose who think is right and vote wisely. Thank you
Jochem the Savior vs. Lance the God Slayer

I said we are equal, yes I did, but if I can slay Immortal beings what makes you think I can't do the same to you? I merely utilized my skills better when battling these gods that's why I was able to slay them. Also you said that I didn't follow the rules, well, in my understanding rebutting is contradicting your opponent's points, and I accomplished this by blessing my character with additional skill and clarity on those skills in order to contradict your argument. I'd also like to point out that this round is for closing arguments yet you continue to contradict my past argument, thus, you are once again doing rebuttals. The opposition chose to continue explain why he would defeat me in this said battle, even though this round is intended for closing arguments. He has considered some of my skills invalid because of what round I posted it in and since he didn't follow his own rules for this round I cannot make the said decisions valid either. To stay in my character in this debate, I'd like to say this to the opposition: I CAN REALITY WARP THIS VERY MOMENT AND PROVE THAT THEY ARE VALID. Because this is the 4th round and is intended for closing arguments, and not rebuttals, I'd like to once again say: I have proven what I needed for my character to win in this battle, though you chose to swerve from the rules even if you reminded me about it, I will just stick to the plan and do my closing argument. Resolution: Jochem, failed to support once again why I would be useless before him in this battle, though he stated that I should have said my other abilities in round 2, it is still a way to contradict your arguments thus technically making it a rebuttal. I like to point out that he did not do a closing argument for this round but continued to rebut my arguments. Once again I say "We stand a chance against each other in equal footing, it just depends on how we utilize our abilities to guarantee a victory in the midst of out battlefield. "
pull out a sword cut from the stone itself

My question is if religion is mental slavery to people then why have a religion, it is their choice what the choose to believe in or if they don't at all. Some do not have the choice until they are adults I understand. Who is to say that is mental slavery because by saying so. it is as if you are trying to speak for all when you say " religion is mental slavery" but if you say " I think religion is mental slavery" then you would be stating and opinion. My parents are Christians they try to make me choose to be Christian by making me go to church or church camp. But, I also know that I have a choice. If having religion is so bad, why are they still around?
School Uniforms

Since the opponent has fallen asleep, I'll express my point further. If clothes were that crucial to expressing individuality, you wouldn't be much of an individual. Also, not having a school uniform would mean more bullying to children whose family can't buy them the latest fashions. I haven't heard a single good argument against school uniforms at all. There are good arguments FOR school uniforms, yet there are only childish unreasonable arguments against school uniforms.
Capitalism is an immoral system

I had agreed that capitalism denotes the private ownership of means of production as opposed to state ownership of the means of production, which is the most common usage of the term (1)(2). Capitalism does not preclude certain types of private ownership, such as cooperatives, from existing. This debate hinges upon the value added by a business owner. If the business owner does not add enough value to be equal to or greater than his or her share of profit, then the business owner is unnecessary. If there are unnecessary positions within an economic system, the system is immoral. I have demonstrated the manner, however, in which the business owner already adds value equal to his or her share of the profit by outlining the service they provide. My opponent would still claim the services of an individual can still be met by a collective of the workers (whether the workers differ in their skills, training, or knowledge is unknown). The reason there are not more, they claim, is because a capitalist economy inherently disfavors democratic cooperatives. The key point that my opponent concedes is that cooperatives are disfavored because cooperatives are not set up to out-compete other businesses. The efficiency and success of capitalism lies in direct competition (3). As I stated previously, market forces ensure value is appropriately assigned to goods and services via price points. A divergence from free market competition would result in inaccurately priced goods. If the value of goods and services are disconnected from their prices, then we will see a plethora of "unnecessary positions" in which the value a person adds is not adequate to their wage. Therefore, the market forces and competition of capitalism are the keystones of it moral nature. Attempts to promote uncompetitive business are immoral. (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) . https://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) Gregory and Stuart, Paul and Robert (28 February 2013). The Global Economy and its Economic Systems. South-Western College Pub. p. 41. ISBN 978-1-285-05535-0. "Capitalism is characterized by private ownership of the factors of production. Decision making is decentralized and rests with the owners of the factors of production. Their decision making is coordinated by the market, which provides the necessary information. Material incentives are used to motivate participants. "
Capitalism is an immoral system

I compliment my opponent on posing a complex and enduring topic and accept the topic for debate. I will agree to the definition of "capitalism" as private ownership of the means of production as opposed to the state ownership of the means of production. However, there is an issue with defining capitalism as a system characterized by business owners existing "above" workers. I believe the core of the false dichotomy of capitalism/communism (or similar economic systems) is the assumption of "class" and thus the existence of "class struggle." I hope to show that capitalism is not comprised of rent-seeking "haves" enslaving proletariat "have-nots." Capitalism is a system in which society rewards value via their democratic consumption and is moral in any ethics-system that puts an emphasis on freedom.
Track is a useless sport

Track is useless, even though you gain muscles needed for other sports you must realize that the very action of training yourself to run away. The very goal is cowardly and not worthy of the time of a true man. If you want to dedicate your life to doing a meaningless task over and over without advancing in any way. why would you run in a circle even cross country would be a better candidate for a great sport. Albert Einstein once said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Did you know that Hitler made some Jews do meaningless tasks like sweeping the street every time someone passed, track is the sports equivalent to it. Also before I mentioned how it does build important muscles for certain sports but, intelligence and strategy can make up for any physical advantage someone has on you. I Wrestle and I am not the strongest but I have the technique to knock anyone opponent off his feet even though I am physically not even close to there level.
Track is a useless sport

Track is not a useless sport. It increases someone's muscle mass, endurance, and flexibility. It will also increase someone's mental toughness and health. It also teaches us about teamwork. It teaches us not to give no matter how hard it is. It doesn't matter how bad you want to quit you must keep going because the hardworks pays off in the future. Millions maybe of adults and kids participate in track. If track is so useless why or millions maybe billions of kids and adults paricapte in it.
Track is a useless sport

I would first like to start out with that track is not all about running there is also field events like shot Put, Discus, javelin, pole vault and others. In track there is more to it than one may think. Track is just not as simply as just running or hurdling or throwing a discus and vaulting. You must use certain techniques in each event lets first start with running. According to cross country and long distance track coach Huygens said "that having improper running can caused you to injure yourself when running." Having improper form can injured because It could injure your back because if you have bad posture it leads to injury and it can damage your muscles because of how you do it. Also without proper form and breathing technique it can cause you to lose more energy and oxygen in a race. According to Scott Douglas the basic elements for a good form is "there are basic elements of good form, including landing over your center of gravity, a light, rapid cadence, minimal lateral rotation and, easier to spot than quantify, relaxed body position." There is more to form and running in the following link http://m.runnersworld.com.... Now In other events I mentioned. In discus or shot put you can just throw the ball or discus you must throw it at a certain angle with a specific technique for throwing. In pole vaulting there is more to just using the pole to jump over the bar. in pole vault if you don't have the proper vaulting technique it can cause you to break the pole which can hit someone with the same force as a shotgun now that's dangerous. So in this argument I proved that track isn't just simply running or throwing something there is a lot more to it than others may think. I look forward to your next argument.
Marijuana Cures Cancer

Props to Larz for the articulateness of his explanations. I will now defend the studies I presented and address the specific points made against them.P1) Confirmation Biasa. Virginia StudyCon said "Injecting some cancerous mice with THC is an example of confirmation bias - the researchers were checking whether there was any benefit to using THC."There are two logical fallacies here. First, one can not conclude confirmation bias has been performed in an experiment solely off the nature of what is being tested(i.e. whether THC is beneficial). Secondly, it is fallacious to conclude what the motivations of the researches are based on the nature of what is being tested.Ergo, Con has not substantiated his claim that the Virginia study is an example of confirmation bias.b. Madrid StudyCon said "The process of autophagy was isolated in a test tube. Based on this, the scientists looked for signs of autophagy. This is the most extreme case of confirmation bias I have ever seen in a medical journal."The same two logical fallacies apply to this claim. Ergo, Con has not substantiated his claim that the Madrid study is an example of confirmation bias.c. California StudyCon said "This showed that cannabidiol can enhance the activity of THC. The study therefore presupposed that THC cures cancer."This is both false and non sequitur. The study states that both compounds were tested individually and that they were found to have a more effective result when combined.Ergo, Con has not substantiated his claim that the California study is an example of confirmation bias.P2) Mice vs. Human test subjectsa. Virginia studyI cannot confirm that human cancer cells were used since I don't have the study but I can conclude that this is very likely considering the purpose for using mice in cancer research is because human cancer cells can be grafted to them without rejection. [1] As Con pointed out, this was the case in the Madrid study.b. California StudyHumans were used.c. First-hand accountCon did not address the first-hand account of humans being effectively treated for cancerous tumors with marijuana, which I presented with video.P3) Sample SizeI assert that fault in sample size can be out-ruled due to the number of studies that repeat the same results and the degree to which the results made themselves clear. CONCLUSIONIt is a reasonable conclusion that the studies I have presented have passed the scientific method, affirming the resolution, and Con has not substantiated otherwise.SOURCES1. http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu...
Marijuana Cures Cancer

A pleasure to be debating Larz. Excited to get the debate underway. EVIDENCE:E1) As said in an article by journalist Raymond Cushing, and as forwarded by The American Medical Marijuana Association, in 1974 researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who were funded by the National Institute of Health, learned that THC shrank or destroyed brain tumors in test mice and the results were recently repeated by further research in 2000. [1,2]E2) Marijuana components, including THC, have been found to inhibit the growth of the most common, and aggressive form of brain tumor, a glioblastoma, according to a study published in a 2010 issue of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, under the American Association for Cancer Research, which was repeated by Patients for Medical Cannabis.[3,4]E3) According to a 2009 study recorded in The Journal for Clinical Investigation, cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells. [5]E4) As reported by Science Daily and the Huffington Post, in 2009 Guillermo Velasco and colleagues, at Complutense University, Spain, have provided evidence that suggests that cannabinoids such as the main active component of marijuana (THC) have anticancer effects on human brain cancer cells. [6,7]E5) First-hand account of cancer treatment via cannabis. [See video] http://www.youtube.com...SOURCES:S1) http://www.alternet.org...S2) http://americanmarijuana.org...S3) http://mct.aacrjournals.org...S4) http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com...S5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...S6) http://www.sciencedaily.com...S7) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...CONCLUSION:The evidence is clear. The sources are reliable. What else can I say?
if you dont have kids, you don't have a use.

That was a good response. I like your point about the young being seen as useless. This is my first post so forgive my rambling. I find your response more to do with living on a spiritual level. I agree with your views though. My counter arguments are as follows. With regards to having no meaning to really exist I would say that through time, no one has meaning in the scale of life. An ant has no meaning but it has a purpose. Newton had a meaning to people but a meaning to life i don't think so. When humans are no more will newton still be important. No. The only meaning people have is the meaning other people give them (not including the sperm lol). With regards to evolution that could on theory be the destruction of humans. Where's our ancestors. So that meaning would again be worthless as humans could cease to exist. Again with newton. The point you make is merely a meaning given through living and nothing to do with life. Newton did a lot for our understanding of our science (science changes with time) so we give him meaning. Unless he had siblings his genes will not be passed on. He has not created life. We on a grand scale are nothing. Humans have existed for how long. To think we have meaning in life is to hold us above any other life. Humans are a different form of life from animals and insects etc but still a life. The whole point for animals, fish, insects etc is to reproduce. Some are designed soley to reproduce. Shown here. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... With regards to evolution. The strongest will survive. How will they survive?through procreation. Your population point is nothing to do with having a meaning in life. A nice life has no more or no less meaning than a bad life. The only point i can see against is that those who make life that's flawed also had no meaning. Thats a whole new debate though which will offend many people. If we progress to exploring the cosmos that still has no meaning in the grand scale of things unless you procreate on other planets spawning more humans thus a meaning in life not just living. Newton does have more meaning to some in living terms. But that family in texas are happy believing what they do and still have a meaning too someone ie friends. So both have a meaning to people but the teams genes are still thriving. Who knows one of these teams may go onto to inventing your spaceship that's going to travel the cosmos. If procreation isn't the meaning of life as it's only a means to keep the species around then I fail to see how you can't agree that's it's the meaning of life. Without sex there is no more humans.
if you dont have kids, you don't have a use.

I would like to make my opening statement short and fast. Sadly, my entire argument I had was deleted and I can not retrieve it. So, I will make it quick. Also, thank you for the topic and the chance for an interesting discussion, Makaveli83.Opening...I will be arguing that the meaning of life is not one determined by the mass, but rather the individual. I want to ask Makaveli, as well as the viewers, to ask themselves this: if you have no kids nor plan to have children, are you going to consider yourself fruitless and no benefit to the species and having no meaning really exist? To argue we have one meaning, and that is to procreate, making anyone who has no kids, seemingly worthless, would be to undermine everything about the human species, and actually all species in general. If there was to be one objective meaning, it would be evolution. The advancement of the species. However, one can argue we have reached a point in evolution that we can self evolve ourselves via technology as we have the brain capability to do wonders already. For one, I think that if we deem anyone with no offspring or current motive to procreate as "useless" we are deeming children of all ages, teens and young adults, and even adults and elderly as useless (who can not do it). Are we to deem a scientist like Isaac Newton as someone with no benefit to the human species on the bases he never had sex? I think that alone shows the silly notion of the topic. It is far better to argue ignorance makes one useless verses not having kids.Additional PointAnother point I want to make before I finish is that are extremely populated to the point that it's fine for people to not procreate as there are plenty of humans currently and that the best thing to do is to make life better and easier for the humans, like in Africa who need it, so as to advance us further to explore the Cosmos.Someone like Isaac Newton is far better in usefulness to the human species and a better means to life than a family in Texas who think the earth is six thousand years old and that homosexuals should be killed. And people should not be deemed useless the moment they have children and stop having kids. The meaning of life is what you make it and far more than sex. Procreation is no meaning of life, it is simply the means to keep the species around. A mechanism for the meaning to even exist by keeping us here.
vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate

You say that you can't mix chocolate ice cream and healthy fruits, but that simply isn't true. Chocolate is generally a bitter-tasting food, you can balance this out with sweet-tasting banana's, or coconut. You can make a variety of foods with chocolate ice cream https://www.babble.com... Let's be real here though. http://www.twofoods.com...= Certain flavors can mix with others, such as Vanilla and Strawberry, And Chocolate and Banana. Both are great, and are only of personal desire, one is not objectively better than the other.
vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate

i think you all maybe have misunderstood me. i didn't really want this to be exactly a debate, especially not a serious one. i just wanted a fun, opinionated, discussion of out of these two what do you like better. personally i love chocolate, i have an addiction to it but i think that its awesome how you can put so many toppings on vanilla! my actual favorite iceacream is cookies in cream. again this was just supposed to be fun
vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate

I believe that one is not objectively superior to the other, I believe it is a matter of personal opinion. Also, according to a study performed by Market Research World, people prefer; Chocolate (28%) Vanilla (26%) Cookie dough/Cookie and Cream (22%) Other (24%) http://marketresearchworld.net... More people prefer chocolate, however I still believe it is a matter of personal opinion, and not of objective means. Vanilla allows cooks to reduce the sugar in baked goods, while Dark Chocolate improves circulatory system health. I believe that they are both good, as I care not, hell, most of the time I choose vanilla. http://homefitnessguru.net... Good luck on this debate!