BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
[Mafia] The Vig could beat the cop in a fight to the death.

As my opponent informed me that this was a joke debate, I intend to troll the sh!t out of this.Contention One: The Cop is bound by the law and cannot attack an innocent person.As the vigilante is town aligned, the cop cannot attack the vigilante for fear of being stuck on desk duty and having to file paper work all day by his fat-a.ss boss. Thus, he could not physically fight against the vigilante, who would easily just shoot him in the head.Contention Two: The Cop is bound by the law part two.Even if the cop were to be able to engage in combat with the vigilante, the cop would have certain procedures to follow as to how to engage some one in combat. There has to be a mandatory time of the cop standing there yelling "STOP!" like a caffeine-addicted school teacher who enjoys playing "Red Light Green Light" a little too much. The vigilante is not constrained by the same procedures, though, and can simply pull out his gun like Ron Jeremy and shoot a load (of buckshot) into the cop's face.Yes, that was intentionally perverted. U mad bro?Contention Three: The Cop is bound by the law part three.Even if the cop was able to successfully navigate through the maze of horrible procedure and the mandatory time of looking like an idiot, he wouldn't be able to kill the vigilante. Why? Because, if he is able to, he has to arrest the vigilante, thus making it not a fight to the death as the resolution states. So even if he is able to knock the vigilante out, at that point he is forced to arrest the vigilante and not kill the vigilante, for fear of the oh-so-horrible desk duty.Contention Four: Obesity.Yeah, that's right. Cops are all fat-asses. It's just logically true. In every good movie, there's AT LEAST one fat cop. If not more. Fat cop would get his as.s handed to him on a silver platter by a lean ruffian with muscles and a gun. It just isn't going to happen.For these reasons, I would posit that the vigilante would absolutely dump on the cop and tee-bag his face into submission. Now, I will refute my opponent's point.My opponent claims that because the vigilante takes an entire day to load his gun, it gives the cop ample time to beat the sh!t out of the vigilante. But this isn't true at all.1. The cop has to aquire all the proper warrants and liscences for attempting to hit an agressor, all of which take waaaaaaaay longer than a day to get. So while the cop is sitting on his a.ss, filling out all the paper work necessary to attack the vigilante, the vigilante would just load his gun and fire away.2. No one comes to a fight with an unloaded gun. The vigilante isn't stupid enough to bring a gun that wasn't loaded to a fight and have to say "Hey! Hold on a second! I gotta load my gun! I forgot to do it before I came here, but I gotta do it now. Please don't hit me while I load my gun!" That's almost as retarded as being a cop.3. The vigilante would never miss because he's a fvcking bad-as.s. This is an accurate representation of the vigilante........ Whereas the cop looks more like this.............. Yeah, it's an obvious win for the vigilante.I await for my opponent's surrender.
[Mafia] The Vig could beat the cop in a fight to the death.

This is a joke debates you may have thought.I start.The vig has poor aim.It takes the vig 1 FULL day to load and aim his gun. Mean while the Cop could go on and beat him to a bloodly pulp.Anybody with a brain could beat anyone. After all, cops are supplied with training.While the vig is preparping his shot the cop will go and nail the vig.
Death Battle: [My Character vs Your Character]

Restating: Although he started out strong with a very detailed backstory, my opponent never gave any evidence against any of my claims, and never counter-argued, meaning that the arguments I stated still stand, and Saitama would be able to win by pure strength, speed, and willpower.Conclusion: I believe my opponent wasn't prepared for this debate, and in fact, almost just seemed like he wanted to showcase his "favourite Fantasy character period", and wanted to show off how cool he was, rather than make him fight in a death battle. If he had been serious about a battle, he would have given specifics about how his character would win, as well as counter-argue claims against his character.I would like to thank my opponent for giving a debate that was entertaining, for the short time that it lasted. If you believe I did a better job arguing for my character, vote Con.Thank you for reading.
Death Battle: [My Character vs Your Character]

I will now post my Final Statements and Conclusions.Urza is considered to be one of the most powerful Planeswalkers of all time spending his entire life which was 3000 Years which is actually a very short lifespan for a Planeswalker never the less he spent these years clashing with the Phyrexians determined to prevent a grim and dark future and even though time and time he was defeated and his body was shattered he was able to pull himself back together. Urza was determined and certain he could defeat the Phyrexians no matter the cost and eventually he did sadly ending his own life for the greater good.Urza's power and spells are strong enough to send entire worlds into Ice Ages and his time travel later led to one of the most important and devasting events in the Multiverse (The Mending). Urza when given enough time could defeat anything no matter what (Which is void in this battle as Prep-Time is not allowed) That said however does not mean Urza once his body was destroyed (If) his body was destroyed could reform it away from Saitama to quickly come up with a stratergy.Although I have taken away things like Urza's Power Stones and his Time Bubble (His Time Travel abilities) he still stands as a formidable opponent who will never back down and will continue to fight until his very last dying breath. After all it wasn't even the Phyrexian Overlord Yawgmoth who killed him it was Urza himself who sacrificed his life to save the multiverse for thousands possibly millions of years to come.Thus I conclude my final Statement and end will a quote from Urza himself."You can build a perfect machine out of imperfect parts." —Urza.
Death Battle: [My Character vs Your Character]

I will be supporting the character Saitama from One Punch Man. I could technically use stronger and more evidence-based characters, such as Superman Prime, but I like a close battle. 1. He does not have world/reality bending abilities such as Prismo, or any omniscient character. 2. He is human, and is possible to be killed. 3. Although he has an ally who would always get in the way if he fought, let's just assume the ally (Genos) has already been defeated and is unable to move or assist in any way. 4. I will try to write as soon as I can and do it off of memory. Are we able to research for specifics of powers? Thank you for reading, and I'm hoping for a splendid debate.
Death Battle: [My Character vs Your Character]

This is a death battle I will debate my chosen character which shall be Urza from the Magic The Gathering Universe against the character my opponent chooses.The Rules1. Your character may be on Superman level feats or higher but not levels like Prismo from Adventure Time.2. Your character must be possible to kill or defeat.3. Your character cannot summon allies to help them in this fight.4. No Prep Time is allowed.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------R1: Acceptence R2: Opening ArgumentsR3: Counter-ArgumentsR4: Closing Arguments/Conclusion [No Counter Arguing or New points]
You can be gay and christian.

A real Christian will always repent and turn away from their sin and will always eventually return to God, and then might resume the struggle against sin. But the Bible gives no support for the idea that a person who perpetually and unrepentantly engages in sin can indeed be a Christian. First Corinthians 6:9-10 lists sins that, if engaged in continuously, identify a person as not being redeemed/not being a Christian. If the phrase "gay Christian" refers to a person who actively, perpetually, and unrepentantly lives a homosexual lifestyle " no, it is not possible for such a person to truly be a Christian.
Legalize marijuana

You use many hypothetical scenarios to postulate the outcome of ending prohibition! I think you are forgetting several issues that are born from "the war on drugs"! This is a list of my concerns! 1. We could use the tax revenue to fund the education of marijuana. Also to fund Obama care! lol 2. The government spends money it does not have to enforce the futile attempt at ending the trafficking of marijuana! 3. Money that could be taxed and used to help our country get out of debt instead is used to fund other illegal activities! 4. Access would be more controlled so you would not have to buy from someone who might sell other drugs! 5. It could be a reasonable alternative to alcohol! 6. Lift the stigma and allow medical marijuana be easily accessed! 7.We live in America. Where freedom to self destruct is protected by the constitution! 8. Criminal records! You mention decriminalizing which would be a step in the right direction! 9. We should be able to grow our own! There would be a great increase in everything that takes to grow (lights, seeds,fans) 10. This is a free market society! Marijuana should be treated like alcohol! Sold by competing companies! It seems that many of the issues you present can be headed off with proper planning! The problem is that people are so divided and many vote against it because of the dogma that surrounds such an innocuous plant! I'm anarchist/ liberalism! I don't believe that I even need a government or laws! I am happy to live my life without breaking my own code of ethics. So it is hard for me to be a part of such an immature solution to try and control everything! So the only ground I can give you is that as a country we are still children that need mommy and daddy to protect us and tell us what to do!
Legalize marijuana

I agree with you, but in the current state of things (the government and the people), I still have to say that certain things should be kept illegal for benefits towards the people that are getting the short end of the stick. If you would have asked me back in 2011, I would have completely agreed that we should have marijuana legal, but the way the government has screwed the people has forcibly made my opinion change. We live in a world that is run by the government, as unfortunate as that is, it's true. There's not much the people can do about it unless we hold a full-scale revolution, a revolution bigger than the one in Ukraine currently - this is a difficult feat, because unlike some other countries, our nation has been conditions, manufactured, and brain-washed to show that a government is necessary, safe, and a healthy attribute to a nation. You have people on the right side, complaining. You have people on the left side, complaining. These people are too wrapped up in their own silly agendas, opinions, and logical fallacies that they're not focusing on how corrupt the government is. This is why we live in a nation where the government has complete reign over it's denizens - this is also why I believe that somethings should be illegal. People need this money; people need to have something that the government cannot get it's hands on. This money is something that the government cannot get it's hands on. This is money for the people, the money that is desperately needed. I'm all for anarchy, believe me, I despise the government just as much as the next anarchist, but the people need money right now. You want to call a revolution, so be it. Maybe after that revolution we can start keeping things legal; until then, we use prohibition to keep things safe and healthy.
Christians have awful, homophobic views on certain topics!

Again, my opponent makes the same statement off of a select few quotes in the Bible. These quotes have never been taught in any sermon I have ever listened to. Furthermore, my opponent fails to address my statement on the behavior of those of the Christian faith. I reiterate, there are some extremists who are an exception to this, as there are with any belief be it political or theological. The members of the Christian faith do not behave in this manner at all, nor do they hold belief in a literal interpretation of these quotes. They accept them as a part of the society in which they were written. My opponent is taking a small, obsolete portion of a huge book based on love and kindness and using it to judge a religion that has moved beyond that time period it long ago. The Bible also contains rules on how to properly collect a harvest in the desert, but are all Christians desert farmers? No, yet my opponent is basically making statements assuming they are the same as this old society.
Christians have awful, homophobic views on certain topics!

Tell me, how can you take these quotes any way other than literally. Please, tell me how "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22) - can be interpreted in any way other than it's literal form. The Bible - as interpreted by all Christian denominations - is without error. By its definition it is without error, 100% true (no matter how interpreted). What is the Bible? It is an ancient novel full of murder, corruption, homosexuality, bestiality, incest and cruelty. It is often read to children on Sunday. Anyone who tells a child this is truth is truely, and honestly an awful detriment to humanity.
Christians have awful, homophobic views on certain topics!

I accept the challenge, good luck to you. Now my opponent has offered several direct quotes from the Bible that are seemingly totally against what Christian beliefs should be. He/she is making a mistake very often made and that is taking the words of a religious book literally. Almost all religious books were written (the Torah, Quran, and the Bible to name a few) in a time where these kinds of laws were commonplace and acceptable. Almost all groups that use such a dated text do not behave in this manner at all (with the exception of some extremists, the most well known being middle eastern terrorist groups) If you meet the average Christian, Jew, or Muslim today they are often kind people who believe in equal rights like everybody else. In my Catholic Church, quotes from the Bible are taught in a way that applies them to modern society, taking into account its laws and rights given to all. I guarantee the average religious person is not anything like these quotes may insinuate.
Christians have awful, homophobic views on certain topics!

The Bible, it has a few good points (Love thy neighbour, don't kill etc.) But to a Christian it is the 100%, divinely inspired, infallible truth. However, it is discriminatory, homophobic, sexist, pro-slavery. Here are just a minority of passages that back up my side of the debate:"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (1 Timothy 2:12)"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22)"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18)"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)By believing 100% in the bible, you must agree with the above statements - if so, then I wish hell did exist.- DylanKitson 19:53 07/2015
The existence of God can be logically demonstrated using Aquinas' Second Way argument

I can agree with their definition of God for this debate. Con argues that there is a flaw with my articulated version of Aquinas' Second Way. Now, Con did not deny one of the premises of the argument, but it seems Con denies that the conclusion follows from the premises. Con objects that "there could be an unlimited amount of limited factors that limit each other. " Except, if each is limited in how much it can limit one another then each factor is deriving how much it can limit the other factor from another factor and so on. This would either go around in a loop (where the factor is ultimately would dependent upon itself for limiting itself) which is absurd or it the limitation will go on for infininte (as Con seems to suggest), which is also absurd. I will explain why an infinite dependency is absurd. To use an example, a sack being pulled by a rope would be an example of dependency, because the sack's movement depends upon the rope. It would be absurd to suppose that the rope is infinitely long, because the rope must ultimately be pulled by something. So, this sort of dependency cannot go on forever. This link ( . http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.... ) explains the distinction in series per se (as I am talking about) and per accidens, which is important to understand for this argument. Now if premise 2 of the Second Way is correct, then limitation is clearly a state of dependency. If limitation is a state of dependency though, and there cannot be an infinite dependency, then there cannot be a beginning less (infinite) series of things limiting another. Now, Con also objected that the argument self defeats because God is limited "not being able to limit himself. " Except, God this would be an example of a logical limitation and I agree that God is limited to acting logically (and so did Aquinas), But, when I talk about limitation, I mean physical or ontological limitation. Logical limitations, such as the classic example of 'not being able to create a rock so heavy that one can't lift it' are not physical or ontological limitations. So, yes God is limited to not being able to limit Himself, but that is simply because He is an unlimited being of course He cannot place a 'true ontological limit upon Himself' and that there would nothing else that could, but God could still place a temporary limitation upon Himself. So, in order to show a shortcoming with the Second Way, Con must either show that an infinite dependency is coherent and/or show that God is more than just limited to acting logically (or show a problem with God being limited by logic). Or Con can bring up a new problem.
The existence of God can be logically demonstrated using Aquinas' Second Way argument

I will thoroughly explain how Aquinas' Second Way argument is nothing more than a circular fallacy. I will direct my arguments towards the summarized logic that my opponent has graciously provided. By "God," I will assume that my opponent is speaking of a deity who is omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Here is the summarize argument:1. There are things that are limited2. Something limited, is limited by something else. C: Ultimately, limited things are limited by something unlimited, which limits the other things in the way it chooses to. This unlimited thing is GodUltimately, the flaw at hand resides in my opponent's conclusion. There is no logical premise for which to ascertain the idea that there exists something unlimited. All that one has to do is replace "unlimited" with "limited. " Alas, the same logic is achieved. Thusly, I choose to expose the anti-logical counter argument within:1. God is unlimited2. God cannot limit himself3. God limits himself by not limiting himself. C. There exists no unlimited things. So one may ask, "Whose to say that God can't limit himself? " To which I respond: God does limit himself- by not being able to limit himself. As you can see, this obvious example of a paradox simply disproves the validity of the existence of an unlimited factor in regards to the notion that it "chooses to limit other limiting factors. " Simply put, there could be an unlimited amount of limited factors that limit each other, but there will never be an unlimited factor that limits other limited factors. Furthermore, this concept will never equate to God. Therefore, the correct logical diagram should consist as so:1. There are things that are limited.2. Something limited, is limited by something else. C: Ultimately, limited things are limited by an unlimited amount of limiting things, which limits as they are limited. In conclusion, it would seem that both my opponent and Aquinas have created a box in which to assert their argument; this box is faith- faith that there is an unlimited factor to begin with, and a preconceived bias that this unlimited factor must be God. On to Pro. [1] . http://www3.nd.edu...[2] . http://atheology.com...
Gay Marriage

"Gay's should be offered the binding certificate of marriage because being married in the United States gains the couple 1,400 civil liberties they wouldnt otherwise have. Theses include, joint adoption, joint taxes etc..." That is exactly why they should not be allowed to wed. If you give tax breaks to everyone that just "feels an emotion" and giving them free money for doing nothing you are destroying the very meaning of that institution. The tax breaks and many other benefits are for those that might unknowingly have children so they can help prepare easier. By giving it to just anybody you are taking away from it's meaning. Adoption should not be up to homosexual couples since children need a male and female parent in order to be raised correctly and idealy. Children should have influences from both sexes, not just from two males or two females. Further as far as tax breaks because they may have children even with adoption and other options to aquire children it is always a choice, not an accident, and should be better prepared for then when hetero-sexual couples have children, thus making the money purposes worthless. "In the bible, it clearly states, All people are created equal." Where does it say that? I've heard things about the Chosen People in the bible, but not everyone is equal. Love thy neighbor as thyself maybe, but not everyone is equal, to my knowlage. " Our country was founded on the premises that all men are created equal. In the Declaration of Independence it states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." By not allowing them to wed, I think we are taking away the ability of the pursuit of happiness, thus violating the constitution." How is civil unions, or a power of attorny any lesser than marriage? They can be perfectly happy without it being marriage, but instead something different where they have rights that pertain to them. "Canada legalized same-sex marriage in mid-2005. Meanwhile other states have created civil unions and domestic partnerships that same-sex couples can enter into and obtain some or all of these state benefits." What is wrong with civil unions or domestic partnership?
Gay Marriage

Gay's should be offered the binding certificate of marriage because being married in the United States gains the couple 1,400 civil liberties they wouldnt otherwise have. Theses include, joint adoption, joint taxes etc... In the bible, it clearly states, All people are created equal. So shouldn't they have the right to wed? Our country was founded on the premises that all men are created equal. In the Declaration of Independence it states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." By not allowing them to wed, I think we are taking away the ability of the pursuit of happiness, thus violating the constitution. Sources: http://www.ushistory.org... http://www.religioustolerance.org...