BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death Battle: Meta Knight vs Link

Thank you for the clarification, and no I was not going to see who is the better character in smash. Link"s moves: Power Bow: Link pulls out a bow that can be charged to release more power Hero"s Spin: Link spirals with his sword, this can be used both on the ground and in the air Bomb: Link pulls out his trusty bomb that has a time limit, the effect can injure himself if he"s not careful Gale Boomerang: Link throws his boomerang that can bring items and players towards him, he can even push himself back if not careful Master Sword: Link has battled many monsters and slayed many more with the sword of light. In all of the games (except Four Swords) he has earned the right of being called the Hero of Time by simply pulling out this sword when Hyrule was in extreme danger. Furthermore, Link seemingly is the only one who can wield this mighty sword. Hylian Shield: The Hylian Shield is a symbol of both hope and the kingdoms crest. With this shield Link will never have to worry about maintenance because it"s indestructible. Link"s blocked more than his fair share with this shield. In Smash it can even stop projectiles from hurting Link (if it"s in the right place). Link obtains this shield through many different ways. Whether it"s from buying it from an old man, getting it from a child, by obtaining it through a chest, or by getting it from a dragon, Link always gets his shield. Conclusion: Link may rely on his equipment, but ultimately he can finish off his opponents with his sword and shield and if that doesn"t work, he keeps on going, cause he just doesn"t know when to quit. I"d like to thank my opponent again for being so kind as to let me debate this with them. And good luck (P.S I can't get the underlines for the items so please forgive me)
The U.S.A would be better off if slavery never happened

Before i bring up my own arguments, I must do some counter-arguments -I will not dispute the fact that 90% of Africans are descended from slaves. -I will, however, say that proportionately Whites do a lot more crimes than Blacks(https://ucr.fbi.gov...). Granted, this is most likely due to Jews using scare tactics to keep in control of the Government, but there is no denying that, if the Blacks weren't brought over as slaves by the Jews, the crimes would have most likely been filled by Latinos/Hispanics that the Jews smuggle in to, as if they didn't use slaves they would smuggle many more in. Now, onto my arguments. 1. Slavery brought many things we wouldn't have today. Thanks to the African American population, many inventions wouldn't be possible today without Africans' involvement, whether it be Peanut Butter (George Washington Carver), Hip Hop/Rap music, or even the Lynch Rope. All these advances that helped make America a better place wouldn't have been possible if African Americans didn't invent, or test the inventions. 2. America is the powerhouse it is today thanks to others' reactions. You see, when the Nazis discovered the Jews and the horrors they've done with slavery, they were the first to step up and try to save the Africans and other people being mistreated from their evil clutches. The Nazis began to destroy the Jews' European/African connections, as that was where most of the mistreatment was being brought from. The Japanese, trying to help as well, destroyed Pearl Harbor, a naval yard that forcefully smuggled in workers from Nigeria, disguised as a military base. Unfortunately, while their intentions were well, they made a few poor choices along the way. You see, the Jews in control had been in a Great Depression ever since a large group of people all around the world had begun to see the truth, and began to rebel, using their Anti-Semitism to help better the world. That is, until they saw that most of the world was still brainwashed, and began to sell weapons and other tools needed for war. The Jews had grown rich playing the victim card and selling weapons to other countries that believed their false plea. With this new money and power, they began their rise to even more power. An agent held famed scientist Einstein at gunpoint, forcing him to come up with a formula suitable for making weapons of mass destruction. Finally, E=Mc2 came into play. Using this new formula, while the "Allies" of the Jews fought their battle for them, they devised the Atomic Bomb. Once the Nazis were sadly subdued, they used this bomb on Japan as payback for destroying a base that brought in 20% of their profit from the Nigerian workers, and Japan sadly surrendered as well. As one can see, the Jews gained a huge economic boost from Slavery, and the Civil Rights mistreatment, due to others' reactions at just how horrendous it was. While I don't agree with how it happened, there is no denying that it helped the country grow prosperous, and remain like that to this day.
The U.S.A would be better off if slavery never happened

P1- Without Slavery America Would Have Less Black People. As many as 90% of black people in the United States are descended from slaves. I don't really think my opponent will dispute this fact. http://www.oread.ku.edu... P2- America Would Be Better Off Without Blacks One way to dramatically reduce the crime rate in The United States would be to get rid of the black population. With a significantly lower proportion of blacks in the population there would be 40% less rapes, due to the fact that 40% of rapers of white women are black. http://library.flawlesslogic.com... We could cut the murder rate in half by exporting blacks who commit 50% of all murders. http://www.fbi.gov... C1-Slavery is Bad Because it eventually leads to a significantly higher crime rate in the Unite States. As bad as slavery has been for blacks, it has been even worse for whites, because of the elevated levels of crime and poverty in America. We'd be better off if somebody invented a time machine to stop the Jews from taking the blacks to America. Other harms- My opponent may bring up several economic benefits of slavery. While I don't disagree that the Jews greatly benefited in the short term with the cheap labor, it certainly hurt in the long run. Cheap labor actually hurts technological advancement. This is one of the reasons, South America is ahead of the United States in the agricultural tech. They employ. American farmers overly exploit cheap labor, and the disadvantage is being behind technology wise, and ultimately have less power in a global economy. It's quite possible that we'd be 100 years more advanced right now if it weren't for America's reliance on slave labor. I'd like to point out that no matter what economic benefits my opponent brings up (which are merely short term), it does not erase the fact that Blacks are now a huge harm to society and the billions spent on prisons could be cut by like 90% if blacks did not get brought to America, seeing as how they are a huge part of the prison system.
The U.S.A would be better off if slavery never happened

I accept this challenge, and would like to point out a few things. 1. I am NOT saying that slavery was a good thing. We all know it wasn't. I'm simply debating about how it was beneficial to the U.S's growth. 2. Because of this, I simply ask that the moral argument of slavery not be a factor in this debate. This is about if it helped the U.S grow or not, not the morality of whether it was right or wrong.
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

(1) You're absolutely right. You can't always trust Wikipedia. But my opponent forgot to realize that HE too used Wikipedia to back up some of his info. So that means that some of his info might not be true neither. Also, if I can't use Wikipedia, here are other websites to support my claim. http://www.livescience.com... https://www.theguardian.com... (2) Wow, we're not even talking about the First Amendment anymore. I guess it might be my fault for trying to support my God. Anyways, I see that this debate is pretty much over. I wish my opponent good luck once again, I'm sorry if I insulted him at all, and may the best debater (Is that a word?) win!
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

"(1) Well, you bought up the matter of Jesus. Also, he was a living person. Even atheists agree that Jesus was alive, although he could of not had powers or been the child of God. https://en.wikipedia.org...; Wikipedia isn't always a good source of evidence You are delusional, Though you said "he is not in the clouds" but are you serious when you were saying that he is everywhere? Because you didn't bring any evidence to back up your assertion. He was not a living person, he was just a myth. God is just a myth too. There are churches in America where children are slaughtered for not believing in Christmas just like ISIS slaughtering innocent Egyptians for not comforming to Islam. Don't ignore Link of evidence: (1) http://dailycaller.com... (2) American Child Massacre (Churches Slaughter Innocent Children for not believing in Christmas):
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

(1) Well, you bought up the matter of Jesus. Also, he was a living person. Even atheists agree that Jesus was alive, although he could of not had powers or been the child of God. https://en.wikipedia.org... (2) How would limiting free speech stop ISIS!? If we're limiting free speech, we're letting ISIS win. Plus, even if we did limit free speech, people would still be inspired by ISIS. There's really no stopping that, unless if we don't mention ISIS at all. (3) It may be true that you can't see Jesus, but think about this. You can't see air, yet we know it's there. We can't see anything that has 4 dimensions, yet we know it exists. Plus, Jesus just doesn't stay in the clouds. He's everywhere. (4) Brainwashed Americans? Now I know you're crazy. ISIS isn't just a ton of brainwashed Americans. They're people from Iraq who disagree with the American law. Brainwashing has nothing to do with Iraq, sir. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

Here is my proof that Jesus does not exist: https://en.m.wikipedia.org... To tell me to give evidence that Jesus doesn't exist is irrelevant and pointless, it's like saying "Give me evidence that leprechauns don't exist" it has nothing to do with the first amendment, but everything with skepticism Yes, we should limit free speech because there could be a chance that someone who is inspired by ISIS would carry out attacks in America or behead Americans, which is a threat to society. You don't see that some of these people could kill innocent people like you, you fail to admit to that. How would someone like "Jesus" ever exist if you don't legitimately see him in the sky, you only see clouds and the sky. I know that ISIS is not apart of America, but it is attached to the minds of some brainwashed radicalized American. You fail to see that there are some Americans that are inspired by ISIS. Instead of spelling perfect right, you put prefect, which is a spelling error.
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

(1) Where is your proof that Jesus isn't real? Here's my proof right here: https://bible.org.... (2) As I said before, ISIS doesn't obey the Bill of Rights or any laws, for that matter. They are terrorists. What you're saying is because they attack us because they don't agree with our system and laws, we should change them. That makes no sense. I believe that the First Amendment shouldn't change just because of ISIS. (3) Actually, Hitler and the Holocaust had nothing to do with Christianity. If you did more research, you would of saw Hitler only hated people that won't part of the "prefect race", meaning you had white skin, blonde hair, tall, and blue eyes. However, they saw the Jews as leeches, sucking off of the prefect race. (Evidence: https://www.ushmm.org...) (4) Popularity doesn't have nothing to do with it. Christianity just brings hope. Delusional would be believing that rape is ok, bud.
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

First of all, The statement that Jesus does not exist is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. Second of all, I never said that ISIS was a part of America, ISIS was just an example of why the first amendment should be fixed, like what happened at San Bernadino, as shown in this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org... We have ISIS inspired Americans caught in this country trying to leave the country join ISIS, but they fail trying. Hitler is another example, but not in America, because what if we enforced the belief on Christianity so hard, that we start killing people and children of different religions, race, and beliefs. Like what Hitler did in The Holocaust, as shown in this link here: https://en.wikipedia.org... Just because a belief in Jesus Christ is somewhat popular, doesn't make the fact that Jesus does not exist a "matter of opinion" that just means that you're delusional, so in fact, that you believe that Jesus Christ exists.
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

Hello, I'm David! This is my first time doing a debate! I personally think the first amendment is perfectly okay, so I'm going to debunk The Instigator! Good luck, and here we go! (1) You may say that Jesus Christ isn't real, but that's a matter of opinion. Many people believe in Jesus Christ, and many people don't. It just matters what you think. (2) First of all, ISIS is a terrorist group, not part of America. You must remember that the First Amendment only applies for the USA. Other countries might not have a law similar to the First Amendment. (I know the First Amendment isn't a law, but not all countries use a Bill of Rights.) The same goes Hitler. He wasn't a part of the USA. He was a German man with racist, sexist, and religious beliefs. Also, where did the Christian killing the children take place at? The Bill of Rights might not apply in the place where it happened. (3) Once again with the opinions. Opinions and facts are two different things, you must remember.
The First Amendment should be fixed (It is broken)

The con will argue that the first amendment should not be fixed and is the way it should be. Waiting for a con Free speech should be limited and religion should be removed from the first amendment and all of society because there was a video warning that liberals would do protests called "Impeachment Protests" on July 2nd Religion should be removed because here is the truth: (1) Jesus Christ is not real, he never existed (2) Children are being killed for not conforming to their beliefs like ISIS, Adolf Hitler, and Christian churches (for not believing in Christmas) also, there is a video about a Christian threatening women and children acts of torture for not comforming to their beliefs: (3) All Religions are dishonest, unreliable, and make fake forgery accounts trying to conform mythology with modern day history like the Roman Empire.
School Uniforms

I believe that there should be no uniforms in school. People should be allowed to wear whatever they want- it is their God given right. The first amendment establishes freedom of speech, which is hand in hand with freedom of expression. If you take away a persons ability to chose what they get to wear, you take away their sense of individuality and the things that set them apart from other people. As long as there is a reasonable dress code, what people wear to school should not affect learning of others in schools.
School Uniforms

I believe school uniforms should be worn. School uniforms have a lot of benefits. When you're rushing around in the morning trying to get ready and find clothes to wear, a uniform could be a great help. It's quick and easy because it's the same outfit everyday, and you don't have to worry about picking out/finding different clothes to wear every day. Also, if everyone in school is wearing the same uniform, it decreases the amount of judgment towards other people's clothing. A uniform creates no sense of individuality, but that is not important at school, because we are at school to learn, and our outfits have nothing to do with it. Nobody's uniform is going to cause distraction to a learning process.
has ET already been discovered

No, a pyramid is not the easiest, but it does not have odd shapes and doesn't require odd physics. I said you contradicted yourself because of the poor grammar you used. 'I am from the UK and agree with you about it all happening in the US is not true'. That was a poorly constructed sentence. I would like to also point out that there is no direct connection between complex technology, complex constructions and aliens. You have to prove that aliens have and had complex technology now, and had technology back in the time of the Aztecs and Mayans.
has ET already been discovered

I am quite confused by my opponent's wording. The first sentence seems to contradict itself. No less, I will try to continue my argument. The reasons for technological advancements in our weaponry has been answered to us. If you were to take the answers they gave us, and tried to rebuild some of it, you could easily be able to get it down. Why are so many civilizations have similar shaped buildings like pyramids? Well, because with a basic understanding of geometry, physics, and limited resources and tools, pyramids were easy to make. If aliens could have had a hand in helping us technologically now with weapons, why wouldn't they hep the ancient civilizations with their technology? An engineer can create an advanced weapon right before your eye, so that means if an alien helped those civilizations with building, they should have taught them how to use and make the technology. It's the only way an argument such as yours about civilizations could possibly make sense.
has ET already been discovered

I am from the UK and agree with you about it all happening in the US is not true. There are many other reasons why ET has been here . I believe they came here to study the birth of this planet when life first evolved and have repeatedly visited over the thousands of years. I also think they have had contact with some governments and probably the USA due to all the major advances in warfare technology over the past fifty or sixty years is just staggering. Also why do many ancient civilisations seem to build the same shaped buildgs all over the world but could have not been in any direct contact. Everthing to me just points to them already having some kind of contact with us already.
has ET already been discovered

In the natural world, everything occurs for a reason. Generally, in nature, one does not interact with another unless they can get something out of it. Besides the fact that there have been sightings, just like there has been ghost sightings, leprechaun sightings, and demon sightings which have not been proven, there must be some sort of gain for an intelligent life form from outside Earth. And there should also be a reason for them making it somewhat hard, yet according to several people, rather easy, to explain. And I would also like to know why would they all come to America? There have not been many other places in the world where these aliens have been discovered, so why America? We have the fewest natural resources, and if they are doing research on people, America is not the place to do it. You have a diverse group of people who eventually mold in to similar kinds of people. Blacks, Asians, Whites, and Hispanics are all very similar in America.
Humans cannot prove anything other than their own existence.

Prove-be 100% certain For example, humans cannot prove the grass is green, the Earth is round, or that Barack Obama is an actual person (unless Barack Obama is my opponent). The only things humans can prove is that they exist, and they can only prove that to themselves. Cognito Ergo Sum (I think therefore I am), basically means that if you are thinking than something must be thinking, that something would be yourself. MY ARGUMENTS (1) We, as humans, experience the world through our senses. Our senses are fallible. So, we actually don't know anything, everything that we think we know is actually based on varying degrees of belief (which puts thinking the grass in green on the same level as bigfoot and ghosts). (2) The only things humans can prove is that we exist, however, we cannot prove the existence of anyone other than our self. I think therefore I am. It means, that in order to be thinking about my own existence, something must be thinking. That thing must be me, so, therefore, I exist. (3) Every other person in the world other than ourself might just be figments of our imagination. ..
This Century will be China's Century

I accept. In order to fulfill the Burden of Proof Pro must show that China will be the most powerful country on Earth starting in the year 2000, meaning he must prove that China was the most powerful country from 2000 - 2011 and show that China is currently the most powerful country in the world today in 2012 and then he must show that they will continue to hold this status until 2099 in the fields of military, culture, politics and economics.
This Century will be China's Century

Hi, this is an interesting topic that I have debated before and I don't think a similar topic has been debated on this website. First Round is acceptance, Second Round are arguments, Third to Fourth round are rebuttals, and the Fifth round are conclusions. I define the following: This Century - the 21st Century spanning from 2000 - 2099 China's Century - China will be the most powerful nation in the world, primarily in the spheres of military, cultural, political, and economic.
Evolution did happen

Since Pro makes a positive claim, I assume that the burden of proof lies wholly with him. Thus, I only have to show that he has not, or he cannot, prove that his conclusion is true. First, as far as I can tell, his claim requires direct empirical evidence. So, I expect him to show examples where we have seen animals (or perhaps plants) evolve from one distinct species into another distinct species. Of course, he can show examples where some animals look like other animals, and he can claim this as a basis for knowing that evolution occurred. But the fact that one thing resembles another fails to prove a causal connection between the two. Second, I assume we"re using a standard definition of "species." A species groups together animals or plants that are able to reproduce successfully. None from outside of that group can reproduce successfully with any in the group. Third, I would like to see Pro develop a definition of "natural selection." I hope that Pro realizes that although I am a man and that I am con, I am not a con-man.
Dogs are better then cats

I am aware of the fact that dogs help people who have dealt with PTSD and depression and other disabilities. I agree that is a great thing. Cats could be able to help someone with depression. They are very sweet, loving animals and can lower someone's stress level. Cats typically don't require as much training as a dog would either. They are much smaller and take up less space in your home too. If a cat climbs into bed with you, you wouldn't mind so much. With a large dog, it would be uncomfortable and nearly impossible. Dogs are protective of their owners, and can be good at guarding your home. There are other ways of protecting yourself though. You can get a security system and a gun. Neither of which require very much maintenance. As far as people owning dogs in history for a status symbol, people probably did that with cats too. I believe cats are better because they are calmer and quieter than dogs, making them a little easier to own.