BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Obama Will be re-elected if he faces the current GOP candidates

I believe that Barack Obama will be re-elected president because overall he is a better campaigner and a better overall candidate than any individual out of the current GOP candidates. Every current candidate in the GOP has some fatal flaw or fatal quality that I believe would cost them the presidential election if they were to go one-on-one against Barack Obama in the 2012 campaign for the presidency The Con must simply offer evidence against this, I encourage a creative counter-argument :) Con may also use the first round to state his arguments, or if they choose to they can simply accept the debate and wait until the second round to state their arguments. There are 5 rounds and a 8000 character limit so there will be plenty of debating. This argument is based on the one condition that no new Republican candidates enter the field for president....... I dont want to end up in a debate where the Con is going to argue that Palin or Donald Trump will join the race and they would beat Obama, for fairness the Con may only argue for the CURRENT GOP candidates, they include, Mitt Romney Rick Perry Michele Bachmann Herman Cain If you really want to you may also argue for Newt Gingrich Ron Paul Rick Santorum John Huntsman
Ice is the best bot in gunbound

Dude, are you seriously kidding me? Did you ever even freaking play this game before? Every mobile has their own pros and cons. They also perform differently on different terrains and wind levels. Ice is one of the best mobiles in team games due to its ability to decrease its opponent's defense by 5%. Its shot 1 can also bunge good and has less delay. And you CANNOT base your goddamn argument just on some dumb statistics. THEY DON'T MEAN ANYTHING. You have obviously never played this game before because you do not know that each mobile have their own special effects and things. Next, dragon is NOT the best. If you know how to use your mobile, then it is good. If you don't, then it isn't. And you can also look up this guide here to find out for yourself that Ice is superior in team battles. http://www.gamefaqs.com...
Ice is the best bot in gunbound

If you were dumb in History, English, and Science but were smart in Math, then it's safe to assume you are not the best/highest ranking student. All bots are NOT the same. The stats prove that they are different and, all else being equal, DO determine who is the best. Not only have I provided you with these, I've also discussed the strengths of their types and weaponry. All bots do have their advantages and disadvantages, but some have better advantages and fewer disadvantages. All in all, Ice loses out to better bots, specifically Dragon. You've yet to say why Ice is the best bot aside from its shot 2. In regards to that, its shot 2 lowering 5% defense is good, but doesn't help all that much because Ice's defense is lower than many other bots. This means you must connect with multiple hits in order to just break even with your opponent's defense. Also, shot 2 has a high delay, making the player wait longer to shoot again. The bot you've chosen can not take as many hits and will die before it gets to shoot enough for that -5% defense to make any difference. For now, your job is to use the facts of the game (not your personal preferences) to prove that Ice is superior to Dragon and all other mobiles available. Until then, link me to this individual guide with their special characteristics you mentioned and I will still show you that there is a better bot than Ice.
Ice is the best bot in gunbound

Okay so just because your are dumb in global history and smart in math does that mean you're dumb? Same thing for gunbound. Just because Ice is bad in 1vs1 and 2vs2 doesn't make it bad since it is good in team battles. You never talked about the fact that Ice can diminish the opponent's defense by 5% with it's shot 2. Does it say that on the stats? Furthermore, ALL mobiles are the same. For example, turtle and boomer have high attacks, while other mobiles have high defense. And you should know that you can not base your opinions on a mobile primarily on the stats that they say. You should read the individual guides on each mobile in order to find out the special characteristics of each one. To sum it up, every mobile has its own advantages and weaknesses.
Ice is the best bot in gunbound

Yes, I have played the game before and I agree that it did get boring. If you want to find out more about Ice, the information is all on the website. "Truly, i believe that all mobiles are the best" Given the definition of "best," I don't believe your statement makes sense. How can they all be in the highest standing? I am not claiming that Ice is a bad bot for you or anything about individual preferences. Your personal experiences do not count as evidence for your statement, especially seeing as the site provides technical information on each tank. Even if a player has fully mastered a mobile, it is only as strong as its stats allow. According to the game site, each bot has specific abilities, advantages of type, advantages of weaponry, and an overall stats score. Using all this information, the tank with the greatest potential capabilities is Dragon [See the Mobile Info tab]. Dragon is tied with Knight for the highest possible attack in the game (level 6, as opposed to Ice's level 4). Its Defense also trumps Ice, starting at level 4 rather than Ice's level 3. Under the Weapons tab, it shows that Dragon uses an explosive weapon. It is stated that explosive weapons have no handicap over any other bots, giving it the widest range in terms of damage potential. You said that Ice would not lose to other mobiles. Under the Natural Enemies tab on the site I've provided, you'll see that 3 other mobiles have a 5-10% advantage in attack and defense against Ice. For example, Frog is effective against Ice and Aduka and Raon are very effective against it. You admitted that Ice is not good for 1vs1 or 2vs2 battles. How can that make it the best bot? A mobile that would be strong in any type of game would be superior. You also said its super shot is useless. In other words, the shot that is meant to be the bot's trump card is useless. This clearly cannot be considered the best bot in the game when there are others that are stronger, have less weaknesses, and fewer limitations. http://gunbound.net...
Ice is the best bot in gunbound

lol my first debate too :D ps. i made this debate just to learn more about ice o.o ok so, i agree that mobiles are "best" according to different perspectives, BUT i certainly do not agree that ice loses out to other mobiles. Truly, i believe that all mobiles are the best. Although Ice has may have low defense according to you, it really does not apply for me. I am usually the last to die with ice and even if it has low defense, the skill heal can easily make up for that. next, between the two shots, i do not see a great difference in accuracy either. for example, i had the same angle and same power using shot 2 on 2 mobiles stuck on a small rock and it hit them. Then, i switched to shot 1 to bunge them and it hit them in the same spot. Although shot 2, since it comes out from the trunk, may be a problem when ure stuck in a low ground, it does not really change where it lands. furthermore, i do not know where you have played this or not ( i quit this game 2 years ago cuz it was boring as hell and there were lots of idiotic people in there), but when looking for a decent mobile that fits you good, you should not only look at the stats. Ice is a great example of this. on the surface, it may seem to be crappy mobile. It is not good for 1vs1 or 2vs2, but it is one of the best mobiles in team games. It's shot 2 can reduce the opponents defense by 5% and which makes it the most frequently used shot for ice. It's super shot is useless, but it's shot 1 can also bunge pretty well. Therefore, ice makes a great team player helping the other teammates inflict more damage unto the enemy.
Ice is the best bot in gunbound

Yay! This is my first debate and I'll give it a good try. For readers who are not familiar with the topic, Gunbound is a cannon-based internet game where players pick mobile units to battle each other in single or team battles. Each unit has its own strengths and weaknesses in attack, defense, energy (hit points), mobility, and delay. See: http://gunbound.net... for more information. The word best can be defined in one way as being more advantageous or the highest standing. Ice has more disadvantages than advantages and cannot be considered as being the best bot in Gunbound. Its attack, defense, energy, mobility, and delay can all be matched or beat out by many other bots. According to Gunbound's website, Ice's advantages are strength and effective team play with other hitting-type mobiles. Despite what is stated about its strength, its attack is a 4 out of the possible 6. Therefore, in terms of strength, it would still lose against many others, the greatest two being Knight and Dragon. Being effective in team play means it is dependent on others, which limits its efficiency in single battles and reliability to win when teammates have been killed. Other disadvantages include poor defensive ability, wide hit areas due to its large body, and two different shooting point of its weapon. In addition to its personal low defense, Ice is a bionic mobile. Bionic mobiles have the worst armor protection, making it weak against laser weapons. Its large body makes it an easier target, as well as limits mobility. If someone had a lock on the target, it would have little ability to move elsewhere to avoid being hit. Given that Ice is not the strongest mobile, a strong defensive shield is needed to ensure survival. However, Ice does not provide the defense needed to survive the hits long enough to deal enough damage of its own. Its two shooting points of its weapon makes it hard to lock onto targets. When switching between shot 1 and 2, the angles and power need to be readjusted to hit the same spot. With so many weaknesses, Ice is a poor choice for a mobile without a great team to back it. http://dictionary.reference.com... http://gunbound.net...
Ice is the best bot in gunbound

The 3 following quotes are taken from the site you have provided me. Perhaps you didn't read it thoroughly. "Now, Super Shot is all but useless. It only reduces 5% defense, and only if a mobile is directly damaged by it (similar to shot 2). With this change, Super Shot should almost never be used, because now it is basically Shot 2 with an extra 400 delay." "The Mammoth is easily one of the best bots to use in Team games, not so stable in 1v1 or 2v2 games because it thrives on a long and healthy match, not one that is quickly over." "The Mammoth is generally regarded as one of the best tanks (by "tank" I mean a sort of punching bag) in the game, second only to Turtle. He can take the most damage HP-wise, but is somewhat lacking in pure defense to make up for that fact." The Gunbound website shows Ice is inferior to multiple bots. So does this one. Your own source names another mobile, Turtle, as the best bot in the game. Why does every source provided so far disagree with your claim that Ice is the best bot? More importantly, why do you believe your own personal experiences with Ice are more important than those of experts, specifically the creators of the game? Your only points are that ice has a special ability (lowering defense) and is good at team matches. If we were debating that ice is a useful bot in team battles, then you would have a point. However, we are debating whether Ice is the best bot in the game. What you still haven't done is explain why that makes him better than every other bot in the game. Turtle also has a special ability (split-shot) and is good at team matches. Does that make him the best bot? All tanks have their own unique qualities and specialties, so declaring the ones you prefer as the best does not make a case. These are all matters of opinion. The facts available are those on the Gunbound website, where it shows that better bots, like Dragon and Turtle, exist.
point of fetal pain should be used instead o viability as abortion regulation standard

My opponent has attacked me saying I have not a dressed the debate proposition. Yet, even though this is not a shared burden of proof debate (my opponent shoulders full BOP) I in fact have gone and presented evidence for my position while Pro has made baseless assumptions. None of these assumptions have been backed by up at all. All the voter is meant to do is trust Pro and dismiss all the evidence I have presented which counters every “argument” Pro has presented. I really have nothing to debate in this final round. There are no arguments to rebut and all my arguments have gone uncontested. However, I will point out again that saying a baby is equal to a fetus is a false analogy fallacy.(1) I am including a citation here, and I plead Pro to go look at it. So to my opponent, for the final time, we do not know that “babies just prior to being born feel pain.” for two reasons. 1) You need to prove this pain exists and 2) a baby is not a baby until after it is born, before that it is a fetus i.e. a baby is not a fetus. The proposition of this debate has to do with fetal pain. I have presented a rational argument for my position. In contrast you have presented no arguments but relied on the fallacies saying a baby is the same as a fetus. The facts in this debate are that Pro is arguing something which flies in the face of medical knowledge yet is not willing to back these claims up. Please re-read my round 1 argument and look at the sources. These sources are all saying more or less the same thing, “there is no proof of fetal pain.” I hand the debate now over to the voters. (1) http://rationalwiki.org...
point of fetal pain should be used instead o viability as abortion regulation standard

how does con address my pain contentions? because unlike he says, i in fact made pain arguments. i pointed out that a new born obviously feels pain, so by regression, we know that babies just prior to being born feel pain. these are also known as fetuses, in case con forgets. we dont have to go back as far as i argued in outlawing abortions. just becase there nerve receptiors doesnt mean there is pain, as con pointed out. mine was just an argument for deferene to humanity. but we should at least have a point between nine months and when nerves begin forming. there are for sure time and psychiological markers for when pain can occur. i refuse to dignificy his 'fetuses that feel no pain' points, as they are mere technicalities and miss the point of the debate. really, his whole 'fetuses don't feel pain until birth' argument borders on idiotic, cause they obviously feel pain just before birth if they feel pain at birth. to pretend otherwise is idiotic. to ask when the line is drawn is the reasonable approach, if only we can get con to engage in that line of reasoning.
point of fetal pain should be used instead o viability as abortion regulation standard

It seems that my opponent has engaged none of my arguments in round 2, and as such they remain completely unchallenged. This means my opponent has yet to prove a fetus can feel pain. Additionally, my opponent has yet to address the very serious case of pain subjectivity. In fact my opponent has not even attempted to address the cases of fetuses that have Congenital insensitivity to pain. This means my opponent seems to be fully on board with aborting this type of fetus the day before the expected full term due date. I am actually shocked that none of these arguments have been addressed as my opponent clearly has to address these points with well sourced information to be able to claim the debate proposition as correct. My opponents unsubstantiated proof presented for fetal pain are the following claims which I will address one for one. “if you pinch a newborn does it not cry? that proves pain.” A baby is not a fetus. This is an appeal to emotion as well as a false analogy fallacy. It is completely irrelevant to the debate proposition which has to do with fetal pain. “is it still a human being ten seconds before when it was in the womb? of course.” This debate deals with fetal pain, you need to prove fetal pain. As I have pointed out in the previous round the concept of fetal pain is highly controversial and is not widely considered factual. Again, to say a fetus is a human being with all human being experiences and feelings is a false analogy fallacy. Lest I need to remind my opponent this is a debate on fetal pain as a way to determine when abortions should be able to take place. “when does pain begin? we can't say for sure, but we have lots of evidences,” Essentially, my opponent concedes the debate by admitting that there is no evidence to prove when pain begins. My opponent then goes on to say that the evidence of pain is fetal movement. However, as I have shown in the previous round these movement may have nothing to do with pain. In fact my opponent needs to prove these movements are associated with pain. “so we should probably go back further to where pain starts to seems to occur while there are nerves that exist at all.” Unsupported claim like all the other claims presented so far. If my opponent can prove pain occurs in fetuses and prove when this takes place, then and only then can my opponents can make this claim. However, until that point my opponent has no argument. At the moment all my opponent has done is commit fallacies, make unsubstantiated claims and conceded the debate. Lastly, my opponent makes the following completely off topic statements. “abortion should be outlawed. this establisheses my case.” This is not a debate on the legality of abortion. This is a debate on the whether “point of fetal pain should be used instead of viability as abortion regulation standard” I now hand the debate back to my opponent for their final round argument.
point of fetal pain should be used instead o viability as abortion regulation standard

if you pinch a newborn does it not cry? that proves pain. is it still a human being ten seconds before when it was in the womb? of course. when does pain begin? we can't say for sure, but we have lots of evidences, including the aformentioned fetal movements and the development of neural pathways in the body and brain. at the very least, when these pathways are compelete, which is necessarily before viability where you can pinch that baby, abortion should be outlawed. this establisheses my case. but it doesn't even give the benefit of the doubt to humanity and being humane, cause pain probably develops slowly before a completed neural pathway, especially if there are pain avoidance mechanisisms looking to occcur. so we should probably go back further to where pain starts to seems to occur while there are nerves that exist at all.
point of fetal pain should be used instead o viability as abortion regulation standard

instead of being able to regulate when abortion can occur based on viability, it should be based on when the fetus starts feeling pain. the fact we'd have to use pain killers to kill the fetus shows the inhumanity of what is being done. viability is not a magic spot of when a fetus feels pain, or is suddenly a human, take it back a few moments and it's still a person. why not just take it back to the humane point of fetus pain?
Christians do not follow Christ, The Bible or the God of bible. Christ was NOT a Christian.

https://www.google.com...Or we could ask did God change His Sabbath day? Exo_20:8, Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Exo_20:10, But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: Exo_20:11, For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. Exo_31:13, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Exo_31:14, Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Exo_31:15, Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. Exo_31:16, Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. Exo_35:2, Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Exo_35:3, Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day. Lev_16:31, It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. Lev_19:3, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.
Christians do not follow Christ, The Bible or the God of bible. Christ was NOT a Christian.

Jer_4:22, For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. Sottish means STUPID! How can a stupid religion called Christianty allegally based on the bible be correct? When EVERYTHING ABOUT "CHRISTIANTY' IS FALSE!? ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE?
Christians do not follow Christ, The Bible or the God of bible. Christ was NOT a Christian.

Sottish=Stupid! 5530. sakal `58; Strong's Concordance sakal: a fool Original Word: סָכָלPart of Speech: Noun MasculineTransliteration: sakalPhonetic Spelling: (saw-kawl')Short Definition: fool NAS Exhaustive Concordance Word Originfrom sakalDefinitiona foolNASB Translationfool (5), foolish (1), stupid (1). Brown-Driver-Briggs סָכָל noun masculine fool (on formation compare LagBN 48): — Jeremiah 5:21; Ecclesiastes 2:19; Ecclesiastes 7:17; Ecclesiastes 10:3 (twice in verse); Ecclesiastes 10:14; plural adjective סְכָלִיםJeremiah 4:22. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance foolish, sottish From cakal; silly -- fool(-ish), sottish. see HEBREW cakal Forms and Transliterations וְהַסָּכָ֖ל והסכל כְּשֶׁסָּכָ֥ל כשסכל סְכָלִים֙ סָכָ֑ל סָכָ֔ל סָכָ֖ל סָכָ֥ל סכל סכלים kə·šes·sā·M33;āl kəšessāM33;āl keshessaChal sā·M33;āl saChal sāM33;āl sə·M33;ā·lîm sechaLim səM33;ālîm vehassaChal wə·has·sā·M33;āl wəhassāM33;āl Links Interlinear Greek • Interlinear Hebrew • Strong's Numbers • Englishman's Greek Concordance •Englishman's Hebrew Concordance • Parallel Texts Englishman's Concordance Strong's Hebrew 55307 Occurrenceskə·šes·sā·M33;āl — 1 Occ.sā·M33;āl — 4 Occ.sə·M33;ā·lîm — 1 Occ.wə·has·sā·M33;āl — 1 Occ. http://biblehub.com...