BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cyber-bullying upon social media is very preventable

Why a BULLY would wish to create a fake account in order to get under someone's skin is beyond me, and the answer is simple, they would be blocked again and also should be reported for trying to make new accounts in order to make someone's life miserable. Websites can also do something called IP bans, this basically allows them to ban an entire computer or mobile device (which all have IP addresses) access to that website. It would also take a very consistent and paitent person to actually create fake profiles just to bully someone, something I think most bullies are not capable of.
Cyber-bullying upon social media is very preventable

I would like to start off my argument first by saying, I do not understand how cyber bullying on the Internet is as bad as it is. I mean I believe it's very simple to prevent such things from happening, I'm my experience only add friends that you know and anyone who even slightly abuses you, just block them and if serious enough report them, there are buttons on websites such as facebook and twitter that do allow for this despite the news reports. Now please do not bring other examples of cyber bullying into this as I do realise that other examples of cyber bullying such as via mobile phone is harder to prevent. This argument is for social media only.
Paper or Plastic? Paper is better than Plastic.

Your instances of great tragedies involving paper,up to and including the final and most tragic incident (the lab report), serve only to strengthen the value of plastic. Had these volumes of data been stored on plastic slabs rather than paper in any form, they might very well still be in pristine condition. As you mentioned earlier, plastic is not biodegradable like paper is. Certain plastics can be manufactured that are fire-proof, bomb-proof, egyptian/spaniard/nazi/klansman-proof, and most certainly magnifying-glass-proof. Certain types of plastic are very hard to destroy and would have proved a better storage solution for information whether it be indestructible plastic slabs, virtual data on plastic drives or billions of nano sized inscriptions of the text (certainly impossible to destroy all of them) on plastic flakes. Paper is much too vulnerable to be trusted. I am willing to bet that every book in the Library of Congress has a digital copy- just in case.
Paper or Plastic? Paper is better than Plastic.

Four of the greatest tragedies in history involve paper and the burning of it. I still am annoyed when I consider the knowledge and information that was lost when the library in Alexandria Egypt burned down. Then let us recall the ancient mayans, who have supposedly predicted the end of the world as Dec. 21, 2012, however, this information was ascertained by 4 scraps of paper that were remaining after the Spanish burned the rest of their paper as the work of heathens. Next is of course the massive book burning by the nazis and cross burning by the KKK. Finally there was the great fire of 2004 which came from a magnifying glass I was holding in my 8th grade Earth Science class which burned one of my lab reports, leaving me one lab short of the 21 required by the NY Regents. Had to make it up and it took about 3 afternoons. As aforementioned now thrice, Paper is invaluable.
Paper or Plastic? Paper is better than Plastic.

Paper is not without its ecological problems; ask any 5th grader where paper comes from and they would shout out "TREES!!!". While 5th graders are generally not a reliable source of information, studies show that paper does indeed come from trees and other plant matter. Now there is the dilemma, in order to manufacture your insidious paper, forests need tobe culled for their inhabitants (by this I mean trees, not forest people). Trees are necesary for the transformation of carbon dioxide into oxygen. Studies have shown that oxygen is good for you, as 99% of people admitted to breathing oxygen on a regular basis, the other 1% died shortly after the study was taken due to lack of oxygen. The point is, the manufacure of paper destroys the trees that produce vital oxygen. Plastic can be recycled and it does not consume trees to make. BAZINGA
Paper or Plastic? Paper is better than Plastic.

The problem with Plastic is that it isn't eco-friendly. While we may one day be a largely plastic society, (we're headed there now: ie. Barbie, Michael Jackson) paper will continue to be used as it can be recycled. Poland Spring Water Bottles are a great way to carry water to and from destinations, however, they are "forever in a landfill," as pointed out by various public service announcements. This is not good for our environment. Paper can be easily recycled and for all those litterbugs out there, it is also bio-degradable. Win-Win. BaM!
Paper or Plastic? Paper is better than Plastic.

Challenge Accepted. As the con has stated, paper is the basis of the past. Plastic however will be the basis of the future. Look around you. Technology nowadays is largely based on plastic. Even the computer that you used to get onto this debate website is largely made of plastic. Books are made made of paper, yes, but many pieces of literature can be found online. E-Books, online references, dictionaries- EVERYTHING can be found as a digital copy. Paper will one day become outdated, a thing of the past; a relic that people in the future will google on their plastic computers and laugh about.
The Bible is contradictory

Since many "prophets" who wrote in the Bible, there are also many contradictions. For example, Which first--beasts or man? GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. The number of beasts in the ark GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. How many stalls and horsemen? 1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. 2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. Is it folly to be wise or not? PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. 1CO 1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." Human vs. ghostly impregnation ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. The sins of the father ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Waffle House is better than IHOP

Good debate. But the facts are still there, WH is not as good as IHOP. I Hop's food is better, there are more WH yes but two WH is the size of one IHOP. And to be clean is a big help IHOP is always clean and good hot food. You don't have to see the ugly women that work at WH, instead you see the hot ones at IHOP. guys just look at the facts IHOP is better and that is that!
Waffle House is better than IHOP

I stick to my point on service quality and speed must go to WH, as you can't argue the process. You order - server calls it - cook immediately started cooling- as soon as it's done- server serves. Bing bang boom As to cleanliness probably depends on which one you go to, but as we are debating IHOP and WH I'll just say that though the saying is true; when you gotta go you gotta go, I question the intelligence or sanity of someone who admittedly uses the Jon in either. Drinks are better? How so? There is not much room for deviance in quality when it comes to juice, coffee, soda that comes from a machine. This argument just speaks of desperation. Size: big isn't necessarily better. Besides here in GA there are a ton more WHs than Ihops. What does that tell you? In fact there are a couple spots where you can be at one WH and see another down the road, and both are packed! WHs are one of the last bastions of Americana! You go in to a WH in 100 yrs and you can trust it'll be the same yummy real food.
Waffle House is better than IHOP

There is some good points you made, but i still think Ihop is better. One thing for sure is that the drinks are a lot better, you have more choices at Ihop, and better quality. Next thing is Ihop keeps there tables cleen, when ever go to waffle house, its dirty and wants to make me puke. Oh and another thing the bathrooms are just gross, it smells like crap. At Ihop the bathrooms are always clean. And Ihop is bigger so you have more tables and better, faster service. I dont know about you but in my mind that wins.
Waffle House is better than IHOP

Thank you Lmoney for accepting the challenge. Re. Point 1. Food quality: waffles are inherently better than pancakes as they have a)indentions to hold syrup and butter b) are toasted evenly and per your specifications on both sides. C) have authentication printed right on the dang waffle d) are part of Americana folk history as they are likely made from a circa 1950s vintage wh waffle maker. Additionally, WH offers a much more interactive and personal experience, as you can order YOUR way! Who wants to just point at a menu and order some sorry soggy pancakes with a ridiculous name like tootie fruity fresh and fruity. Lastly, though the cooks at WH may often look suspect, you can see them prepare the food! You can know that it was not spit on. Who knows what goes on in the pits at IHOPuke? 2. Re toothless servers: ok so we go to our local WH, and we always try to get OUR server Sylvia, and yes she is missing some teeth. BUT! Isn't that a bonus? It proves WH, hires not based on superficial appearances but on real aptitude for good service. Sylvia is a former gogo dancer and playboy bunny form south Florida, has a gun shot wound from ex husband, and is one of the coolest loud happy old ladies you could ever meet. She knows us, hugs and kisses our kids and hooks us up. When you go regularly to a WH you know that half the folks there are regulars and it's like a family. You just don't get that at IHOP. 3: cheaper kinda depends on what you order but I am pretty sure there are less expensive menu items at WH hashbrowns all the way 4 bucks can't be beat! Tradition and process! The WH menu doesn't change much, they stick with what works and the staff know what to do how to do it, and do it right and fast. Just watch three waitresses call out the orders back to back and the line cooks knock em out - it's like watching ballet. Grungy ugly greasy beautiful ballet. IHOP should be Ihope they get my order right. They have to come up with the most comical promotional menus to get people to come. Why? It's a scam they advertise some nonesense like Parisian style bistro French toast with fresh fruit sauce, but you know that goopy mess comes out of a can. You should feel insulted by their bate and switch tactics. Go to your local WH, interact with some people, have an actual conversation, while your food is properly and freshly prepared right then and there
Waffle House is better than IHOP

Ihop is better and ill tell you why. 1. food is just so good, they make some damn good pancakes 2. They ladies actally have teeth at Ihop, and that makes them a lot more pretty 3. Its cheaper to go to Ihop than waffle house. These three facts are a for sure win for me, pelease explain to me how a toothless server is going to beat going to Ihop???
Put NASA money toward deep sea exploration

1: I have not gone above the specified character limit. The website will not allow me. Therefore there is no way I went above it. I only used all the characters I was allowed to have. No more than that. 2: pla"gia"rize G2;plājəG6;rīz/ verb gerund or present participle: plagiarizing take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own. synonyms:copy, infringe the copyright of, pirate, steal, poach, appropriate; More copy from (someone) and pass it off as one's own. -Merium Webster How am I plagarizing if I am not passing this off as my own, but giving full credit to the article by putting quotation marks and providing a link to the story? I am not passing it off as my own. ThereforeI am not plagarizing. 3: Plus my opponent refuses to debate with me. These points just show the fact that I am a much better debater. 4: all my arguments still stand as before seen.
Religion/God

Alright so I'm gonna make this fairly short because of the way my opponent is arguing. First off, I wanna make it clear that I respect all your points and agree with a fair few of them. Like I said, I believe in God. I just think that religion restricts our relationship with God--almost all religions seem to contain extraneous and pointless rules and regulations that result in them being more like a cult then a spiritual hub to speak with God. In Christianity, these rules include the intolerance of homosexuality, the fact that the Bible says you cannot wear mixed materials, the fact that the Bible says you must STONE (yes, stone, even though Thou shalt not kill??) a woman who has sex before marriage, and many more ridiculous laws (most of which you can find in Leviticus) that I just don't see an all-loving, all-knowing God being concerned with. To me, the only real "sin" is hatred and intolerance, and I see no reason why something that only affects oneself and no one else (such as the mixed materials rule) should be a sin. It is my personal belief that religion is simply a creation of Man, and that the only way to truly have a relationship with God is to do so personally, between you and Him, with no one else telling you how to do so or what you need to do to maintain this relationship. But enough about what I believe, because at the end of the day, this is a debate, so it is important to provide testable evidence in order to prove a point. And this fact is exactly why your argument doesn't hold up to me in any way, and probably wouldn't hold up to a single Atheist out there. In order to prove your point, you have to toss facts, science, the laws of physics ("God is not bound by physics"), and logic all out the window. The only way you were able to disprove my points was by essentially saying, "Yeah but none of the methods by which we observe and measure the Universe apply to God." This is where the whole argument for God falls apart. If I can't use logic, science, and reason, what the hell am I left with? Only faith. And while I myself have enough faith to believe in God, many humans do not. Even if they did, faith holds no standing in a debate--because none of what you're saying can be proved or disproved. This is exactly why I brought up the invisible elephant. So to conclude, I respect your beliefs and even agree with several of them; but the Bible is not sufficient evidence in a debate, nor is faith. Until you provide some measurable evidence for God, your argument is worth about as much as an argument that only cites Harry Potter books as evidence. VOTE CON! P.S. I'd also like to provide a link that I think you should take a look at, it goes over all the messed up and contradictory stuff that the Bible contains, with specific passages cited and available to read: http://www.evilbible.com... I've checked several of these passages to assure that they really do occur in the Bible, and they do. I don't see a "loving" God encouraging any of what this website points out.
Nightmare Chica Versus Springtrap Springtrap=pro Nightmare Chica=con

OffenseOpponent rebuttal to "do to my consistent 2 years of playing time, during which I have made it up to night 8 in every FNAF, 5:00", pro stated, "This statement does have flaws, but, unless I see it necessary, I won't go into detail". Where are the flaws? As for the purpose, it was to state my vast experience of playing the game, showing that I know a lot about it. Opponent rebuttal#2: "The cupcake isn't another sentient being. It's just Chica's jumpscare when getting into your room; she throws the cupcake at you. " The how do you explain the fact that the cupcake bounces and still continues towards you, while snapping it's jaws and moving independently? Opponent Rebuttal#3: "Recall Nightmare Bonnie. He comes through the left hallway, and can jumpscare you if you don't close the door on his breathing. " Where is Pro's proof? Without pro having a source, this merely a assertion or fan make. Opponent Rebuttal #4: "And they die. A lot. I don't see how this is countering my claim. There aren't any cameras to keep track of the animatronics in FNAF 4. " But if you check in the hallways you see animatronics in the hallways and they move out of the way. The only time you see Nightmare Chica in the hallways is if she is killing you. Also, us debating about the fight as if Nightmare Chica was real counters one of your earlier points in round one, therefore handing round one to me. DefensePoint One: Nightmare Chica is ShealthierEvidence:Only shows up in hallways unless doing her jumpscare Player cannot shine flashlight without Chica killing them, making her very dangerousPoint Two: Springtrap is too beat up to last longA bare endoskeleton cannot do much, and that is what he would end up becoming if he engaged in combat with another animatronic. Proof: Bare Endoskeleton easter egg, bare endoskeleton characters wander the pizzeria and even crawl in the vent, yet they do not attack the player. Springtrap may have a serious attack but it is melee, whereas Nightmare Chica has a ranged and melee attack, so chica could just stand back and send the Cupcake after him. Point Three: Nightmare Chica is Stronger, Faster, and Creepier LookingFaster, gets to the halway very quick, and very active during nights 1-5. Source: FNAF wikiStronger, made of steel and not falling aprat as much as Springtrap therefore giving Chica more power when she punches or bites. Creepier Looking, All her elongated teeth and claws will boost her strength and attack, therefore proving points number 2 and 3. I have succesfully stated my points with valid sources behing them, refuted all of Pro's points, therefore winning the debate.
Nightmare Chica Versus Springtrap Springtrap=pro Nightmare Chica=con

To refute my opponent's rebuttal:No evidence that Nightmare Chica is stealthy, also game mechanics are differentNightmare chica does not show up in the hallways, do to my consistent 2 years of playing time, during which I have made it up to night 8 in every FNAf, 5:00, and Nightmare Chica never showed up in the hallways unless doing her jumpscare. Alo, she has an added minion to kill the player with, known as the Cupcake. Also, she is the only animatronic to have a jumpscare in the hallway, making her much harder to avoid. Also, to counter the point that sound in FNAF 4 is the most important, many noobs or younger kids play the games without volume on so they do not get scared, and sound is also a major part in FNAF3, where Phone guy will also play a part in giving you helpful tips, and you can also hear Springtrap footsteps. Also, Pro is not debating about Foxy, instead debating about Springtrap. Whereas there is no way to test an animatronic's ability, I typed this fight into google fight and this result showed: Springtrap: 64 Nightmare Chica: 100. Also, Nightmare Chica may be going against a child, but since even regular and toy chica can kill a night watch person, imagine what strong, fierce, tall Nightmare Chica can do to a person(if not a hallucination). As I just said, there is evidence proving that all animatronics are hallucinations, so Springtrap cannot cannot hit him at all, and he could still startle Purple Guy's soul into cowardice, and regular chica or The Cupcake(Not a hallucination) can move in for the kill.To refute opponent's point 1: Springtrap has many strong pointsRefutation: Moves Slowly: Evidence:Actuall Gameplay, several youtube walkthroughs, and FNAF wiki"Opponent point: Knows more, including every animatronic's weakness: refutation: As the springtrap suit, Purple Guy would not have been able to pull off those weaknesses on Nightmare Chica's cupcake, as he cannot do anything to chicaPoint 2: Nightmare Chica is only a Nightmare, so she cannot do anything: Refutation: How does she kill the child then? She gives him a heart attackShe can do the same to Purple Guy's soul, and while he has paused the real Cupcake or Chica can come in and destroy the animatronicOne final note: FNAF wiki says chica is very active in the first 5 nights, and she is still fairly active after that. Also let's take a look at the jumpscares of all versions of Chica, Cupcake, and Springtrap:Chica: Toy Chica: Old Chica: Phantom Chica: Nightmare Chica: Nightmare Chica's Cupcake: Jack O Chica: Jack O Chica's Pumpkin: And Now, Springtrap's Lame Jumpscare: These Jumpscares Show how Lame Springtrap's is, and considering his is theslowest, indicating he has the hardest time killing the player