BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Current Naruto (End Of Series) is stronger than Current Luffy (Dressrosa)

I meant before sasuke was revealed with his rinnegan naruto punched madara who was a jubbi jinchuriki and hurt him with a powered up fist, in the background the tree was being disturbed from the inside. Naruto can use any element which is how he used lava release and all those different rasen shurikens. Sure the kyuubi needs to charge but when he uses SO6P mode he can enter it instantly and hold it for a long time, so he could use that while the kyuubi is charging. Naruto fought for days and hasn't gotten tired since his final fight with sasuke. Naruto never destroyed an island but if a big ball rasengan normally could destroy a humongous mountain it is safe to say Naruto right now can destroy a small continent. Naruto can use a water release rasenshuriken as stated in the manga.
Current Naruto (End Of Series) is stronger than Current Luffy (Dressrosa)

(the juubi jinchuriki with a single punch) this is false. Naruto did not defeat Madara and the Jinchuriki by himself. The 4th Great Ninja War was also apart of the equation. Sasuke also helped defeat Kaguya. Naruto has no weakness anymore you cannot bring Sasuke into the mix as he is not apart of this battle. Actually you can. If we are pitting Naruto against Luffy, Sasuke would be stalking in the background because Sasuke isn't dumb. He knows when an opponent is tough. If we were to bring Sasuke in, the ninja army would come. So the pirates would come, Luffy's crew. and blitz Kagya: well Sasuke also helped with that too. Sasuke got powers to help beat Kagya and then turned on Naruto. Naruto doesn't need to charge his chakra has the kyuubi and tailed beast will just give it to him. But the Kyuubi needs to charge. All Luffy needs to do is wait until they run out. Yes it may take a while, but it will run out and they will need to charge. Luffy has no struggles like that. No charging, no waiting to fight. He can go in a keep fighting. If Naruto was a water user, than Luffy would easily be outmatched. But he is a air-user. Naruto has been show on numerous occasions to be extremely fast, especially when he is in Gear 2nd however Naruto is faster. How can Naruto be faster than Naruto. That is grammar at it's finest. I'm sorry, I just wanted to point it out. Naruto has multiple techniques that can devastate the terrain. Naruto big ball Rasengan before any of his power ups could have destroyed an entire mountain. Luffy has destroyed a buildings,and punches someone through bedrock, which is the only displays of "destruction.: He can also destroy mountains and he sank Fish man Island. I don't remember Naruto destroying an island. Your move.
Current Naruto (End Of Series) is stronger than Current Luffy (Dressrosa)

Monkey D Luffy is stronger than Naruto base but if we add sage mode into the mix it is pretty even, Tailed Beast Sage mode naruto easily surpasses luffy. Especially if he uses SO6P mode which empowers him to the point where he was able to subdue madara (the juubi jinchuriki with a single punch) and blitz Kagya. Luffy's weakness isn't only water, there is cutting attacks as well which is a huge weakness to him. Naruto can use all the nature's as he has the tailed beast inside of him which have those specific natures. Naruto could use those, plus he is a wind natured affinity user after all so the rasen shuriken will definitely kill him. Naruto has no weakness anymore you cannot bring sasuke into the mix as he is not apart of this battle. Naruto can form a rasengan instantly as well as a rasenshuriken by the end of series. Naruto doesn't need to charge his chakra has the kyuubi and tailed beast will just give it to him. With his natural reserves it will take forever for him to need a recharge
Abortion

Thanks for responding. My opponent’s arguments previously just showed that a fetus is a human being, but failed to prove that killing human beings are bad, he didn’t even refute my contention that murder can be justifiable. REFUTATIONS RE: Fetus as human CON states that a fetus resembles a human being, and thus must be considered a human being. Okay, we have that argument from him, now what? He didn’t state why aborting a fetus should be banned/illegal/immoral, but only wrote a crime statue, which I’ll address in a few. Why the fetus is not a human being: I will attempt to prove that the fetus must not be considered a fully resembled human being and thus negating the contention that states killing fetuses is as equal as killing human beings. According to a report published by Joyce Arthur entitled: “Personhood: Is a Fetus a Human Being?” {1}, it showed that Fetuses are uniquely different from actual humans, and the most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anyone can take care of a newborn infant, but only pregnant women can nurture their fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it. Also, she said that fetuses don’t just depend on the woman for survival, but it needs to be inside the woman’s body for it to live. She states that human beings must be separate individuals. RE: Felony murder rule I think my opponent is confused with this rule, but abortion (at least in America), is not a considered felony, not even a crime. It is legal, so this doctrine is very much irrelevant, unless my opponent can show that abortion is equal to felony murder. But it is not, it’s ludicrous and frivolous to even suggest that. RE: Killing humans unacceptable I’ve addressed this contention previously, that killing can be acceptable and justifiable. I ask my opponent to please review them. CONCLUSION I have proven that a fetus is not a human being and that abortion is not murder, I’ve also proven previously the rights of women to control their body and an argument that shows illegal abortions happening which causes risks, whereas legalizing abortions can help decrease the risks. These arguments weren’t refuted by CON, so please extend them. CITATIONS {1} http://www.abortionaccess.info...
Abortion

NOTE: Great Reasoning! This is looking like a good debate. Good Luck! Considering my opponent's intentions are neutral I will thank him for participating in the PRO side. I will commence my argument with the following: Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans. Fetus: The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal. Resemblance: The state or quality of resembling, especially similarity in appearance or in external or superficial details. [1] According to simple definitions from my search criteria, we can clearly see how a fetus is a human being. It has the appearance of a human, AKA "Resemblance", as the dictionary states, which qualifies such species to the Human Species. As my opponent stated - "Murder-is the unlawful/intentional killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being {2}." Abortion is a criminal intent given the obvious and vague reasons on why a woman is clearly taking regardless methods to commit such acts. By definition: "felony murder doctrine: n. a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder. A typical example is a robbery involving more than one criminal, in which one of them shoots, beats to death or runs over a store clerk, killing the clerk. Even if the death were accidental, all of the participants can be found guilty of felony murder, including those who did no harm, had no gun, and/or did not intend to hurt anyone. In a bizarre situation, if one of the holdup men or women is killed, his/her fellow robbers can be charged with murder." [2] We can agree that certain penalties can be imposed on the murderer, AKA, the abortionist. Now lets ask ourselves, is killing a human acceptable in our society? http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [1] http://dictionary.law.com... [2]
Abortion

If I kill a child would I be considered a murderer? I believe so, yet some people get away with such intolerable acts. Per say, women who refuse to give birth to living creatures, no pardon me, living humans. Why is this legal? Ok women get raped I can see why they would want to commit abortion, but they are still committing a crime, and so is the molester. Truth is, be cautious, one can't avoid rape nor death.
Man was created by god

TOPIC:The statement is 'man was created by god' - the statement that argues for creationism. POSITION:My position is against this statement as I see no evidence.CONDITIONS: a) Faith is not evidence b) Any anecdote - of personal revelation , for example - is not evidence, since it burdens all others to have a) Faith. c) A set of logic will be accepted as evidence only if the assumptions/premises of the logic can be proven true beyond support of a) Faith or b) Anecdote. (i.e. internal logically consistency is not necessarily evidence, as it can be based on ill-founded assumptions/premises)NOTES:I'm not expecting anyone to try and argue this since (to my mind) it is an unfalsifiable claim. However I am interested to see whethere this challenge will remain unaccepted or if there is someone who is convinced they have proof for such a claim."Making unfalsifiable claims are a way to leave the realm of rational discourse, since unfalsifiable claims are usually faith-based, and not founded on evidence and reason.Exception: All unfalsifiable claims are not fallacious; they are just unfalsifiable. As long as proper skepticism is retained and proper evidence is given, it could be a legitimate form of reasoning.Tip: Never assume you must be right simply because you can’t be proven wrong." source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...;
Gun Control

I see your point. But if you were to look at Switzerland and see that they have about the same amount of guns per capita, but they only have .5 gun related homicides per 100,000 people, whereas we have 5 gun related homicides per 100,000 people. And it is in the Second Amendment, and that Amendment exists to prevent tyranny and also is meant as a provision to repel a foreign invasion. America was founded on the bedrock principle that its citizens faced a hostile environment and had the absolute right to defend themselves, their families and their property. And yes owning and operating a gun is a privilege and once we can no longer be trusted to own guns we will have to come to the end of freedom in this country. Let"s just talk about the shooting at Sandy Hook. The reason that all these shootings are happening at places like schools, movie theatres, and places like that is because they know that guns are not allowed. So they think what would be a better place than that. If one teacher would have known how to use a gun and was packing they probably could have saved almost everybody. Doesn"t it make sense that if at least half the teachers knew how to use a gun and kept it somewhere locked up that less shooting would happen? If every school had a weapons locker that had ammo and weapons, we would have less shootings. This would work because there are no longer signs saying "weapons not allowed pass this point" which is what the shooters are looking for. They know that they aren"t in danger because they won"t have any weapons. And thank you for making some valid points, I am doing a project where we have to research on a topic that we want to debate and then right a 4 page essay. And we needed to get points from the other side and put them into consideration.
Gun Control

Very interesting topic and I absolutely understand your point of view. Yet, I disagree. From what I see, your main argument is that without guns, people would be defenseless yes? Let's analyze this logically. One or more intruder(s) enter your home. This will most likely be at a time when you are sleeping. Unless your gun is under your pillow, there is almost no situation in which you could have the gun in your hands before the intruders have you under gunpoint. Now, let's look at some numbers. Death by firearms in 2009 in the US was 10.2 per 100,000 which means that a total 31, 347 deaths. That is a very large amount (especially compared to other countries such as Canada with 2.5 per 100, 000 and the UK with only 0.25 per 100, 000. http://guncontrol.ca... If guns were banned, although not all gun violence would stop, access to guns would be much more limited and therefore decrease the amount of annual deaths. If restrictions were placed on guns, not only would there simply be less weapons in circulation, but they would be much more expensive (in illegal markets) and criminals would be likely to take the risk of possessing weapons, much less using them.
Gun Control

We should not stricken gun control laws because it will not fix anything. Because in America we all no that when you ban something it just magically disappears. Well that's not true. If someone were to break into my house and shoot at me I would that I had the absolute right to shoot back. If guns kill people than pencils misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and spoons make people fat. Oh ne-ne this is not true, people kill people. If we were to make it harder to get a gun than we are leaving the law abiding citizens defenseless, when all the criminals will still be able to get a gun.
Resolved: 'Black friday' is RACIST AS SH!T

"LOL, have you ever even SEEN people in a Best Buy or a Gamestop on Black Friday? Soccer moms are most certainly not the entire makeup of Black Friday shoppers.... Gamers, teens, young dudes in their 20's-30's also make up a heavy proportion of Black Friday shoppers. " there may be other people there, and best buy may have a disproportionately low amount of soccer moms, but the mother outnumbers them in nearly any other store and is always twice as voracious as others. "hey already have something to do that.... Its called reality television." There are two problems with this statement. the first problem is you believe reality television as a way to diffuse pent up anger. have you ever even been angry? watching these shows in no way shape or form is a release, and if i ever turn the tv on and see something like op repo or lizard lick towing i get even more angry at the audaciously annoying cast. the second problem is that even if these passive aggressive scheming soccer moms scheming soccer moms were somehow releasing there anger on these shows, why does that imply they cannot do so anywhere else? it is obviously possible for people to have multiple outlets. "45% off of a PS4 certainly qualifies as almost free to anyone who really wants to buy one. " this example is preposterous. with you saying black friday is racist and comparing it to looting you are assuming blacks jump on these sales because they are poor. to someone who is poor a ps4 that is 45% off (> 200 dollars) is still massively expensive. and to say that 200 dollars qualifies as almost free is to alienate the majority of the public. "Call me crazy, but women spending twice as much of a man's money while he sleeps doesnt sound like a good thing..... In fact it sounds quite terrible. Like putting honey on your nuts and then sitting on an ant hill......" By wives doubling their spending money i was implying that they would by twice the amount they regularly could with their regularly given allowances that their gracious husbands so givingly allowed.
Resolved: 'Black friday' is RACIST AS SH!T

"Now that we have decided the hooligans of black Friday are the soccer moms"LOL, have you ever even SEEN people in a Best Buy or a Gamestop on Black Friday? Soccer moms are most certainly not the entire makeup of Black Friday shoppers.... Gamers, teens, young dudes in their 20's-30's also make up a heavy proportion of Black Friday shoppers. ""get away with gifts at nowhere near what they're worth" this statement is false. Black Friday does not insinuate stores losing money. though a stores profit per item may go down, they never sell anything for a loss."'get away with gifts at nowhere near what theyre worth' does not imply that stores are losing money, it implies that a ton of things are put on sale way below what they are actually worth.... Im saying that the things on sale on Black Friday are sold for prices way lower then what you would expect to pay for those same things on any other day of the year. "I will skate around the new Orleans point because that's a little far I believe."Ill count that as a concession. "The reason black Friday is terrifying is because it is the day women can expel their pent up anger in something they enjoy"They already have something to do that.... Its called reality television."Expensive things are not almost free, they are generally less than 50% off and are not even remotely free."45% off of a PS4 certainly qualifies as almost free to anyone who really wants to buy one. "Men work very hard and if their wasn't a day that they could sleep while their wives doubled their spending money than what would be the point of living in this world?"Call me crazy, but women spending twice as much of a man's money while he sleeps doesnt sound like a good thing..... In fact it sounds quite terrible. Like putting honey on your nuts and then sitting on an ant hill......
Resolved: 'Black friday' is RACIST AS SH!T

To ignore the obvious and further this argument because I assume it will be entertaining I will ignore the fact that sh!t or poop as I will now refer to it as is not racist at all. From the wise words of Tar!3; Gomi "Everyone poops." the word everyone here includes all races and yes, this does include the pandas from world of warcraft. Now I do not believe black Friday is racist for a few reasons. Shopping has long been the realm of the stay at home mom. year after year, story after story, there is always a video of so called "soccer moms" demolishing their competition on black Friday. the most unlikely of creatures becomes a predator and will stop at nothing until she catches her prey. Now that we have decided the hooligans of black Friday are the soccer moms, lets dissect your view of black Friday prices. "get away with gifts at nowhere near what they're worth" this statement is false. Black Friday does not insinuate stores losing money. though a stores profit per item may go down, they never sell anything for a loss. I will skate around the new Orleans point because that's a little far I believe. under similarities, -The reason black Friday is terrifying is because it is the day women can expel their pent up anger in something they enjoy. again the terrifying soccer mom is the reason this holiday is at all untame. -Expensive things are not almost free, they are generally less than 50% off and are not even remotely free. -shopping and looting are literally two different words. the only noticeable similarity lies in saying "like there's no tomorrow" I for one think the day has an overall positive connotation. women get to leave the monotony of the kitchen and driving their mini vans back and forth between soccer practices to shop for gifts for their masters.. err.. I mean husbands, as well as this day ensures the beneficiaries receive ample reward for their hard earned cash. Men work very hard and if their wasn't a day that they could sleep while their wives doubled their spending money than what would be the point of living in this world? Therefore naming a clearly positive day after the black delegation is quite obviously an honor and I for one am riddled with jealousy. *I concede to you one point, Chinese low-wage worker appreciation day, this is literally the perfect name for the Friday after thanksgiving.*
Resolved: 'Black friday' is RACIST AS SH!T

1) The practice of black friday'Black' Friday is the day where people trample one another for all kinds of pricey gifts in stores like hooligans who have no regard for the well being of others and get away with gifts no where near what they are actually worth..... If that doesnt sound like any store in New Orleans being raided by black people after Hurricane Katrina, I DONT KNOW WHAT IS. 2) Similarities between both 'Black's'Lets look at some of the things associated with Black Friday and Blacks in generalBlack Friday:- Terrifying - Expensive things almost being free- Shopping like theres no tomorrow- Stores that have it always chaotic Blacks:- Terrifying (to white people)- Looting items in stores like they are free (New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, LA after the Rodney King Verdict, DC after Obama was elected)- Looting like theres no tomorrow (Again, N.O. after Katrina, LA after Rodney King, DC after Obama)- Cities that have them always chaoticThe 'Black' in Black Friday has many negative connotations about it that is clearly secretly aimed at black people.... 3) Why go with Black Friday?If you wanted to name a day of the year something to indicate when prices on everything imaginable would drop to record lows, there are a lot of other things you could call such a day other then 'Black Friday'......Here are some other things it could have been called:Capitalism Day!F*ck Communism Day! (Liek the first one, but more with a Middle Finger aimed as Communism)Day After Thanksgiving Sale!Wallet Relief Day!Christmas Wish List Day!Winter is Coming Sale! (<----------- My personal favorite)Chinese low-wage worker appreciation day (Since they make all the expensive sh** on sale on this day)Point is, they could have named the Black Friday just about anything else and it would have been great. But noOoOoOoOo, they went with BLACK FRIDAY instead......Why? Because people are racist as sh** thats why.... They thought it would be funny to name a day where everything goes on sale 'Black Friday' because those racist sh**heads thought that blacks STILL wouldnt be able to afford all the stuff on sale, even though the holiday was named after them.....And that is why Black Friday is racist as sh*t.
Resolved: 'Black friday' is RACIST AS SH!T

Sure it does! If your wife is mad at you, give her a glass of wine and let her catch up on 'The Bachelor/Bachlerette' and I guarantee she'll mellow out. again, just because you can defuse anger with a tv show (and alcohol) doesnt mean that is the only way to do it im not assuming it, Black Friday is, hence the name 'Black' Friday. .. .. . Since blacks are poor they have an increasingly low ability to buy most products compared to, ie the discounted tvs that are around 200 and many other products. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe black friday is not racist as sh! t because 1. ) sh! t is not racist 2. ) Since the most intense and terrifying shoppers are women, the relationship between the name black friday and the race of people is irrelevant because looting and buying at a discount are very different since most blacks,according to your argument, are poor and most people still cannot afford these dicounted prices. p. s. this is my first debate so i copied your format through most of it. (obviously).