BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Terrible Fan Fiction Challenge!

One last response. If my opponent wanted only one round, he should not have made it a five round debate. His responses 1. "My opponent's fan fiction is not long and is actually rather short and it those not contain much." The fanfiction that I provided is 45 CHAPTERS LONG. Check the link that I gave you. 2. "This is rather an identification of a character and who they are and not much else. Also, it is typical of a "Debbie Sue" character to be super smart, super athletic, and practically good at everything. This fan fiction "Debbie Sue" does not show that because it does not explain the character's mentality." HE NEVER READ THE WHOLE FAN FICTION: HE ONLY READ ONE CHAPTER, SO HE MISSED THE DEBBIE SUE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. 3) The first fan fiction I posted is just disgusting and awful. The content in it evolves rape, murder, and is horrifying. Furthermore, you do not have to read the person reviewing it, just the story itself." My Immortal also involves all of those disgusting crimes and is horrifying. Also, he provided a link with exercpts to the story, and not to the story itself, so we have no way to review it. ALL OF MY ARGUMENTS AGAINST HIS FANFICTION WERE DROPPED. PLEASE EXTEND THEM AND USE THEM TO VOTE FOR ME.
Terrible Fan Fiction Challenge!

You do not have to review your opponent's fan fiction, that is for the voter to decide which is worse and that is why we provided a link to the story. Since my opponent did 1 review ,I will respond with 1 review, but then we can stop. 1) My opponent's fan fiction is not long and is actually rather short and it those not contain much. 2) This is rather an identification of a character and who they are and not much else. Also, it is typical of a "Debbie Sue" character to be super smart, super athletic, and practically good at everything. This fan fiction "Debbie Sue" does not show that because it does not explain the character's mentality. 3) The first fan fiction I posted is just disgusting and awful. The content in it evolves rape, murder, and is horrifying. Furthermore, you do not have to read the person reviewing it, just the story itself. http://www.fanfiction.net...
Terrible Fan Fiction Challenge!

This is my first debate, so I will start with a fun, easy topic. The fanfiction that I have chosen is the infamous "My Immortal" Harry Potter fanfiction. http://www.fanfiction.net... Three reasons that my opponent's argument falls.: 1. He did not actually post the fanfiction; rather, he posted a review of it. It is impossible to fairly determine if a fanfiction is bad based on a review that has, quite obviously, ignored many important details that were originally presented. The fanfiction that I posted is a copy of the original and is presented in full form. If you browse through it, you will see that it is horrendous. 2. The fanfiction that I provided has a "Debbie Sue", or a character who wishes to be part of a fanfiction and thus inserts herself into the story. This is a hallmark of poor fanfiction; unfortunately for him, his work does not contain one. 3. The fanfiction that I provided has poor spelling and grammar and twists all of the characters into a modern, "emo" context. Harry Potter is apparently a closet, emo vampire while Albus Dumbledore, Draco, Ron, etc. have all been corrupted as well. Jaden Yuki in his fanfiction, however, could conceivably act in an innocent, cheerful manner while Jack is portrayed as malicious and arrogant in Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's Season 1, so the character's identities have not been completely taken out of context. Thus, my fanfiction is worse than his, so you should vote for me.
Proof of God Via Opposing Religious Ideals:

1. If God does not exist, objective religious ideals do not exist. 2. Objective religious ideals do exist: 2a. If opposing religious ideals exist, some religious ideals are wrong. 2b. If some religious ideals are wrong, objective religious ideals exist. 2c. Opposing religious ideals do exist. 2d. Therefore, some religious ideals are wrong. 2e. Therefore, objective religious ideals do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. QED
Flow+rhyme taste contest

Tech's other songs are, as you say, very fast, but the song I posted was one his most seamless flowing/rhyming songs.I liked the aesop song, it was better than the aotp song in terms of flow actually but equal in rhymes. Your second song is not good imo but clearly we have very different tastes with only slight overlap.Here we go with a couple more raw masterpieces.Let's make it two power duos for fun too.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Flow+rhyme taste contest

Good flow isn't necessarily about ridiculously fast speed. It's about rhythm and wordplay, and how well they align with the beat. Really, I don't think really fast raps sound very good. That Machine Gun Kelly song is...... okay; he just goes really fast and repeats his "flow" over and over (says each line really fast, except for the last word.) I was waiting for a Tek-9 song to be posted. Tek-9 has good flow, overall. The song you posted doesn't really show it off all that well. I'm fairly certain that I'm winning. Feels good, man.http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Flow+rhyme taste contest

Eminem's new flow is indeed repetitive and ridiculously speed-oriented rather than rhyme-oriented. His old-school flow (which is what I've posted thus far) is not repetitive however and is seamless in all ways in my opinion. Your round 2 second vid had great rhymes with broken flow and your first vid is not a flow/rhyme masterpiece but not too bad at either. I don't only dig Em though.chip off http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Flow+rhyme taste contest

I will admit something, the first video/song was perfection, literally no flaws at all in the flow or rhyme scheme and did indeed scare me, then I watched the second... Yeah... I'm not scared... But your AotP song was indeed brilliant so it's time to up my game. Here are two of the best flow+rhyme masterpieces. For the ifrs,t ignore the video pause, that's just a music video aspect. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Time Cube Theory is true

Thank you for posting your next argument. Look at this example, "Resolved, guns should be allowed for everyone to have. You can read all about it in the United States Constitution." You see, in a debate one can not just say go read about something. You must make an actual argument. Also, have you read that link? If you want me to debate the stuff your link said, let me just point out some of the things it said. "White welfare for Black Race fuels inherent slaughter." "A HOLOCAUST AND IT IS NIGH UPON YOU. HIRED SICK TEACHERS ARE PAID TO TEACH YOU EVIL TO ENSLAVE YOU STUPID AND YOU NOW POSSESS AN IDIOT CYCLOPIC MENTALITY. YOU LACK THE BRAINS TO KNOW THAT 4 SIMULTANEOUS DAYS ROTATE IN AN IMAGINARY CUBED EARTH. KEEP IGNORING ME AQND YOU WILL PAY HELL FOR CLAIMING" Hmm.... here's something else "Obama must resign to save his people from his catastrophe. SUN power will not allow any Black Skin power to rule over its Light Domain. Hell cometh to the dumb, ignorant, educated stupid "Worshippers of ONE", for Creation is of OPPOSITES. Born Cubed I defy God of ONE, for I have a Yes and No mentality necessary for cubed intelligence -no Cyclopic educator can allow. Obama must resign or Doomsday,for only Light can rule over Earth. No ONEistic god possesses Cubed Wisdom. " Okay, so I will argue argue your link in round 4. I thank my opponent. and encourage the audience to read the racist link. Sources: http://timecube.com...
Time Cube Theory is true

Thank you for posting your next argument. My argument was based off of yours. Your title said Time Cube Theory is true. But In a debate one does not debate the title, one debates the argument. I have done so fairly. You: The pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed. I am the person being addressed, I am not an academic. Therefore I have proved your argument wrong. I encourage you to post an argument in round one in later debates. I thank you again. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com... (2). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Time Cube Theory is true

I am very sorry for the above confusion, and should like to clarify. First, my opponent has misquoted me. As you have the power to scroll up the page, a clearly state: "If you successfully prove the con argument, you have the chance of winning $10,000 from Dr. Gene Ray." That is, you have to disprove time cube. While my opponent has this quoted as:"If you can prove that the Time Cube Theory is true, then you have a chance of winning $10,000 from Dr. Gene Ray." They said that I had said that to prove time cube true you can receive the money. So I should hope for Koopin to respond to the above. And yes, you can only receive $10,000 if you are a academic, but only $1,000 if you are not. Secondly, the general purpose of me posting this debate is to demonstrate exactly why it is important for the burden of truth to be on the affirmative, rather than negative, as it is very difficult to prove even a preposterous idea false. But this does not mean we can accept it to be true. Here is a video of the application of the time cube kritik in a debate round: (@1:04) http://www.youtube.com...
Time Cube Theory is true

Thank you for posting your next argument. In a way, this was a debate. First of all, I am guessing this is a joke. If it is, I am unamused. Okay, I will disprove your link in a few words. This is a clip of your source. "At the risk of my life, I must issue a GRAVE WARNING to my fellow Americans - about a potential Civil War between millions if Obama, the Black candidate, is elected President of the United States, displacing the white president - inducing America to become a Black Nation." Obama has not tried to make America a black nation. Resolution...negated. I would also like to point out to the audience. My opponent has decided to use the link to debate for him. The link he provides has many curse words, is racist, and has many spelling errors. He loses the Spelling and conduct vote automatically. Thank you for this debate.
Time Cube Theory is true

It will be especially difficult for me to defend my resolution as my opponent has yet to make any arguements against it, and if they do so next speech, there is n possibility of me answering. As Judges, you can only evaluate the clash between the two sides. There is yet to be any. If my opponent makes arguements next speech, I would love to hear them, but I have no opportunity to answer and therefore they cannot be evaluated. So extend all my case, it has gone uncontested, therefore it is conceded to be true. As for the remarks my opponent made against the racist links and tendencies of the website, this is a fact, and they have stated it. There has been no actual argument made (until possibly next round). Even if the links are racist, they do not help the Con in their arguments, it doesn't disprove time cube theory. So, case has gone conceded, and therefore true. I eagerly await my opponent's response.
Fast food should be banned in the U.S!

In spite of fast food being unhealthy, there are healthier alternatives fast food restaurants provide. For instance, the article on USA TODAY, "Fast-food restaurants pledged to offer healthier options for kids. How have they done?" written on August 10,2017 by Sarah Toy stated,"Here"s the good news for public health advocates: In 2016, none of the chains" websites listed sugary soda and other soft drinks on the kids" menu. And online, they had all added at least one healthier drink to their kids' menus, such as juice, water or low-fat milk, and at least one healthier side dish, such as fresh fruit or yogurt."(Toy). These restaurants are not out for our health, they're simply just here to help. With healthier alternatives we don't have to fear. In, "allaboutmanners" an article written in January 27, 2014, they claim, "Just about every fast food restaurant offers some kind of healthy alternatives today. Whether it"s grilled chicken sandwiches, wraps, or salads, there is usually something for everyone.One thing to keep in mind is that healthier options generally tend to be a little more expensive. But because it is fast food, you are still going to save money over homemade foods."(ALLABOUTMANNERS"). In conclusion fast food restaurants should not be banned in the US due to it being saving people money,time, and also being a bit more healthy. https://health.usnews.com... https://allaboutmanners.wordpress.com...
Fast food should be banned in the U.S!

People in the United States are constantly moving and have no time to cook at home so they rely on fast food restaurants . For instance, an article by allaboutmanners Fast food- Advantages and Disadvantages states, " There is very low or no waiting period. Food is usually prepared in matter of minutes and you can be on your way"(Allaboutmanners). People should realize that others with busy schedules need to eat even if it's not home-made. researchers found out about 25 working mothers and 25 working fathers eat out due to their working circumstances. So not only do busy workers rely on fast food but also their kids. http://content.time.com... https://allaboutmanners.wordpress.com...
Fast food should be banned in the U.S!

Though my opponent stated that fast food is affordable for low income people and helps them save a lot of money and time, the cost of fast food can be deceiving. According to an article done on Vittana.org,"Value meals seem like they provide a cost benefit, they really do not compare to the cost of a home-cooked meal. At the low-end of the average price estimate, a home-cooked meal will save the average household $2 per serving compared to a fast food meal. For a family of 4, just eating at home once per week more often than they previously do could result in an average savings of $416. For larger families, the average savings is even higher. That shows the savings of a fast food meal can sometimes be deceptive". As well as the low income people can not afford the healthier options that fast food does offer. According to Vitana.org, ABC News compared salads that are served at McDonald"s with the burgers that are on their menu. If you ate a chicken salad with creamy Caesar dressing and croutons, you"d be consuming 390 calories and over 1,300mg of sodium with 26 grams of fat. A double hamburger at McDonald"s contains 65 more calories, but 3 fewer grams of fat. As well as the food quality is lower at fast food restaurants. Fast food goes through a bulk production process. This tends to lower the overall quality of the food that is being produced. Many quick service restaurants use frozen foods that can be quickly heated or cooked to provide faster speeds. Long-term storage is often required to keep prices low, which limits fresh meats and organic vegetables. Furthermore, one meal from a fast food restaurant can consume a persons recommended daily calorie intake. With this being said, fast food should be banned in the U.S due to the so called "healthy"options not being cheap and affordable to low income people as well as fast food not being healthy to society and all the dangerous health affects that comes with fast food which I stated above. Some flaws that my opponent has is that the website she gave can not be opened on Safari which doesn't allow me to see if the source that was used for the information is credible or not. https://vittana.org...
Fast food should be banned in the U.S!

Fast food in the US has its advantages and people should realize it helps low income people save a lot of money because it is a cheaper alternative, saves time with busy people, and although fast food has its reputation of not being healthy but there are healthier options. Buying fast food is much cheaper than buying and preparing a meal. While buying many ingredients can come at a cost buying a meal at a fast food restaurant will save a lot of money. According to Anne Pinol editor of "Fast Food Survey: Most Costumers Choose Fast Food for Convince " states that "There are a few different reasons people might choose to eat fast food. 67% said they eat fast food because it"s convenient. 32% said they eat it because it"s cheap. 31% said they just like eating fast food. 13% said they have a lack of other options. And 6% cited other reasons for eating fast food, such as having coupons or going to eat with friends"(Pinol). People in the US should reconsider to fast food for being cheap for those how can not spend much money on home made meals. Research found about 5.2% of the US alone eat at fast food restaurants so there is no reason to banned them when people rely on them. ttps://aytm.com...
Fast food should be banned in the U.S!

Banning fast food in the U.S will decrease the rate of obesity in America. 60% of Americans are overweight and obese which leads to health risks such as diabetes, sleep apnea, high blood pressure, various types of cancer, headaches, gall stones, depression, asthma, and lower back pain. According to an article published on July 20, 2012, Deirdre Imus from Fox News stated "If fast food advertisement towards kids was limited it would lower childhood obesity rates". With this being said, we can see how the fast food industry is being promoted by advertisements which are affecting children by letting them think it is okay to eat fast food.Fast food is highly processed and contains carbohydrates with no fiber which can take a tole on the cardiovascular, digestive system nervous system,reproductive system, skeletal system, as well as the respiratory system. According to an article published by health line "today, more than 2 in 3 adults are considered overweight or obese. More than one-third of children ages 6 to 19 are also considered overweight or obese. The growth of fast food in America seems to coincide with the growth of obesity in the United States. The Obesity Action Coalition (OAC) reports that the number of fast food restaurants in America has doubled since 1970. The number of obese Americans has also double". http://www.foxnews.com... https://www.healthline.com...
Death Penalty

Even though a convict takes up space, he/she would also take up space on death row. In fact there were three men in Alabama who spent an average of 23 years on death row, and in California many inmates spend up to 20 years on death row. These people are also looked after and fed everyday. Even though many other countries use the death penalty, those countries have a very different society, way of life, and government than we do. We live in a place where people refer to us as "the land of the free." How is the death penalty making us land the land of the free? Sending someone to life in prison is not a long death sentence. This is because we are not the cause of their death physically, if they die of old age in their cell it is not our fault. The death penalty is immoral because it is a person physically lethally injecting another person. A person spending their life in prison will die at some point, but their death will not be on the hands of another human being.
Death Penalty

You have to remember that a convict takes up a space in a cell that could be used for someone else. He eats everyday, drinks everyday and does so for as long as he lives. For as long as he lives he needs someone to watch him, as a matter of fact a group of well trained guards. It is less time consuming and less expensive to just put him to death. many other countries also use the death penalty, and perhaps some countries that kill more often have lower crime rates. Maybe we aren't killing enough. Sending someone to life in prison is basically a very long death sentence. How is it more moral? And also, if it keeps crime off the streets then why doesn't the death penalty as well? If I have an unrepentant murderer, who fully confesses and is found guilty by a court for a most heinous crime, then his right to life is void in my opinion since he will not show the same mercy to others.
Rematch: Pikachu vs Jibanyan

Strategery dropped my argument on how Nate could get Team Rocket to capture Pikachu, Pikachu isn't able to battle, and Jibanyan would win by default.So it's up to the voters now. As agreed, I can't make any new arguments. But this is an interesting battle, even without everything Pro brought up. One more thing: When voting, please treat this as a real debate, since it (kind of) is.
Rematch: Pikachu vs Jibanyan

1st debate: http://www.debate.org... New rules: 1) Evolution or Fusion of any character is forbidden. Meaning Pikachu is unable to become Raichu (even though it will never happen anyways), nor can Jibanyan fuse with any Yo-kai to become Baddinyan or Thornyan. 2) Neither character can recieve backup. It will be only Pikachu and Jibanyan fighting. However, Ash and Nate can instruct their partner, but Ash and Nate aren't allowed to actually enter the battle. Also, Any other "-nyan" Yo-kai are forbidden, such as the gem-nyans, fruit-nyans, Robonyan, Goldenyan, or Shogunyan. Even if Shogunyan and Robonyan are technically Jibanyan. It'll be only Jibanyan and Pikachu fighting. 3) No held items will be allowed. So Pikachu can't have anything, nor can Jibanyan. 4) We can use data from the video games to determine base stats. But I would like to bring something up: in Yo-kai Watch, there is a "Spirit" stat, which is both the attack power and defense regarding 'spells', or elemental attacks used. This Spirit stat will be treated like the Special stat from the 1st generation of Pokemon. But Pikachu will have Special Attack and Special Defense like all Pokemon have nowadays. 5) While we can use data from the video games, ultimately, we're using the characters from the cartoon. The majority of arguments should come from feats accomplished in the animes of Pokemon and Yo-kai Watch. 6) The battle will take place in a stadium this time, similar to the arenas Ash is in occasionally. There is no homefield advantage. 7) We will be arguing for 5 stats: Strength (how much damage the character deals), agility (speed and nimbility), Durability (how much damage the character can take), abilities (special powers, such as elemental attacks, or spiritual prowess), and Partner; how helpful Ash and Nate are in terms of instructing their respective friends. 8) Saying that a franchise is more popular is not a valid argument. We're focusing on this battle as unbiased as possible, even if some fan makes some death battle where Pikachu wins. (Or maybe the person's a Yo-kai Watch fan) 9) I'd prefer you have an argument constructed before accepting this debate. If you can't come up with an argument, say "pass" or something along those lines to the debate doesn't freeze, at least. 10) Failure or refusal to follow these rules risks an automatic loss. No acceptance is necessary. Con will go first and write "pass" for final round.
It is Unlikely Noah's Ark Happened.

(Heh, I sound like a scholar. ) However, some ground rules:My BOP will be that Noah's Ark likely did not happen. My opposition's BOP will be that Noah's Ark likely did happen. "Unlikely" will be defined as possible, but not likely to have happened. Structure:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ARGUMENTS ONLYRound 3: REBUTTALS ONLYRound 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed. )Rules:Plagiarism not allowedForfeiture not allowedBreaking structure of debate is not allowed. Personal attacks are not allowed. Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points. By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Under NO cicumstances will ANYTHING in this round be changed. Good luck to the opposition.