BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

While I appreciate my opponent attempting to make a "humorous" argument I think he misses my humor and creativity (as he stated were requirements for the argument). I would point out that engaging in a debate about cartoons using valid scientific principles could be construed as an ironic situation. Irony can be key component of humor. Furthermore, I think the voters will agree that my "out of the box" are far more creative than engaging in a debate limited to the bound of "what really happen" on SBSP. I think it could be also view as a humorous situation when a person is upset with another person because he takes a SBSP debate "seriously". As I have previously stated, unless my opponent proves the intentions of the creator of the show affirm his resolution every point he makes is invalid. With that said, my opponent failed to counter any of my arguments; only attacking my arguments as "unfunny".
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

Great, I found the one person on this whole site who wants to take this argument seriously... -_______________________________________________- I have already shown that Spongebob can throw a good punch (see above videos) so in a boxing match between him and Patrick Star, Spongebob would have the ability to hit him pretty hard (as I have shown) Keep in mind that Spongebob is very crafty and uses different tactics to solve problems that normal people, and Patrick Star, would not be able to think of. That gives Spongebob the edge in the fight because he has the ability to think of crafty ways to beat Patrick Evidence of Spongebob developing crafty solutions to a challenge: http://www.youtube.com... In One video we show how Spongebob tricks plankton to stop controlling his brain by describing the deliciousness of a Krabby Patty and forcing Plankton to jump for it, but bounced off it into the machine where he was analyzed and became stuck in the machine, his plans foiled again. http://www.youtube.com... In the next video (skip up to the 3rd minute) we see how Spongebob quickly gets Squidward to stop playing the Clarinet badly by using a slingshot to shoot A Marshmellow Up the Clarinet into Squidwards mouth to stop him from playing the Clarinet. This shows how creative Spongebob is to neutralize a potential problem. The Second video also shows how Spongebob has very good aim, something that would be very beneficial to a boxing fight between him and Patrick Star... To summarize: I have shown that Spongebob can indeed throw a punch, is very crafty, and has very good aim. The Con has claimed that it cant happen because in real life sponges dont have a large mass, and thats it... I required the Con to gave a humorous and creative argument, instead he has used real life science, tried to denounce the show for not following the laws of physics, and has demanded people vote for him in the second round of a five round debate -________-
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

While I appreciate Pro's argument, it is fundamentally flawed. If we adhere to the idea that the laws of the natural world do not apply to cartoons then we are left only to laws which apply to cartoons. Therefore any cartoon is dependent upon the cartoon creator for ever facet of the cartoons existence (including, but not limited to governing laws of science), as we perceive it. Since the burden of proof in this debate lies with the Con, he must show that the creator of the cartoon, Stephen Hillenburg, would have SBSP "beat the sh*t out of Patrick in a boxing match" if he (Hillenburg) ever created such an altercation.
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

The Con uses good logic to reinforce his argument, however he forgets that the laws of physics dont exactly apply to cartoons. As you can see the videos on the right show Spongebob can exert (sometimes an impressive amount of) force on an object. http://www.youtube.com... First video shows Spongebob literally breaking Squidward's face on accident while in a frenzy. Should the same thing happen in a boxing match against Patrick Star then Patrick could be messed up pretty Bad http://www.youtube.com... In this second video you can actually see Spongebob punching himself in the face (with a boxing glove please note) and it left a rather large indentation. The laws of physics may be violated but I have shown tangible proof from the cartoon shows itself that Spongebob can indeed throw one helluva (DDO doesnt recognize that as a curse word ;D) punch....
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

The premise of the characters Patrick and Sponge Bob is that Patrick is a Star Fish and Sponge Bob is a sponge. For the purpose of definition, I will define "beat the shi*t out of" as a physical altercation marked by elastic collision between two bodies in space. With that said, because a body of a sponge lacks mass as a result of low cellular density the mass factor of the equation that basically explains elastic collisions (m1u1+m2u2=m1v1+m2v2) shows no momentum will be transferred from SB (sponge bob) to Patrick Furthermore, because a sponge also lacks any form of motor development, inherently, no velocity can be generated. With little mass and no self-generating velocity the sponge can generate little to no force. (http://www.springerlink.com...) (Landau LD and Lifshitz EM (1976) Mechanics, 3rd. ed., Pergamon Press. ISBN 0-08-021022-8 (hardcover) and ISBN 0-08-029141-4 (softcover)). Therefore since characters are not tangible but are based on tangible objects, we must use their tangible counterparts to analyze this question. With that said, it would defy the laws of physics for SB to "beat the shi*t" out of Patrick.
Spongebob Squarepants would beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star in a boxing match

I need some entertainment, but only 4000 characters per round of it. I think that Spongebob could beat the sh*t out of Patrick Star if they went one on one in a boxing match. The Con may use any Spongebob evidence to offer otherwise. I encourage creative arguments but urge the con to remember, this is for laughs, so be funny.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

My opponent has not addressed Sanger's friendly relationship with the K.K.K. It was made clear in the quote from her autobiography that I provided that not only was she asked directly by the K.K.K. to meet with them, the meeting was a success, they liked her very much, and even invited her back again. It doesn't make much sense that someone with such close ties to a group like the K.K.K., which is infamous for lynching blacks, would not share their main goals-- one of which was killing Negroes. In regards to the semantics of the title of my debate: I still say I need only prove that a single one of the reasons Planned Parenthood was founded for was extermination of the Negro race.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

Everyone that Sanger publicly said she wanted exterminated (the disabled and stupid) were inherently unable to provide much opposition to her. It can be understood that she refrained from letting it be publicly known she she intended to exterminate the Negro race because dealing with an entire race of people who oppose you would make her goals more difficult to accomplish. I contend it follows that any Eugenicist who deems a race inferior also deems them 'feeble-minded'. I shouldn't need to prove exterminating the Negro race was the sole intention of the founding of Planned Parenthood it was never said or implied by me at any point.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

"Sanger's language in this quote is far more typical of someone trying to hide something then that of someone trying to avoid being misunderstood." Not necessarily. This was a letter to a specific person, to be understood by that person in the context it was meant, with no need to "hide somehting", which we can only guess at after the fact without the help of Mr. Gamble. Again, as noted, Ms. Sanger had no issues explaining exactly who she intended to exterminate. "...given the fact that Margaret Sanger was prejudiced towards the Negros, and racist in general, my interpretation has more evidence in it's favor then Con's interpretation" No, it does not. Not every racist is in favor of EXTERMINATION. "Does 'undeniably feeble-minded' in this context apply to Negros as well as those with incurable, hereditary disabilities? We are discussing the views of someone that both I and Con agree was a Eugenicist and very racist towards Negros, so I think the burden of proof lies on Con to show otherwise." No. Again: just because someone thought that an entire race was inferior to another race does not mean that they were in favor of exterminating them. "Remember, for me to win this debate, I need only prove that one of the reasons Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race, not prove this was it's sole intention." That actually would be the burden you took on yourself when you said "Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race", rather than "one of the reasons that Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood was to encourage extermination of the Negro race". However, I feel that you have failed even in the burden to prove that it was only "one of the reasons"; a single quote that may or may not support your point does not definitively establish your point. Ms. Sanger was undoubtedly a racist. But one quote, taken outside of the original context, does not establish that the intended Planned Parenthood to exterminate the "Negro race". Planned Parenthood has never been an organization that advocated compulsory birth control. Planned Parenthood was never Ms. Sanger's organization has not been shown to advocate for any extermination of any sort (though Ms. Sanger did regarding certain classes of people, none of which were "Negroes"). If Planned Parenthood cannot be established to have ever been attempting any sort of extermination, then it cannot be attempting the extermination of any specific race.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

Let me return to the debate on the interpretation of the quote in Sanger's letter to Dr. Gamble: "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." - Margaret Sanger One should interpret this as meaning Margaret certainly did want to exterminate the Negro population. Else, why did she use the words "We don't want the word to go out" instead of saying something like "We don't want them to think"? Surely Con, and you, our audience, understands that Sanger's language in this quote is far more typical of someone trying to hide something then that of someone trying to avoid being misunderstood. Also, given the fact that Margaret Sanger was prejudiced towards the Negros, and racist in general, my interpretation has more evidence in it's favor then Con's interpretation: my interpretation aligns with the wording, character, and affiliations of the quote's author. If there is any doubt as to Sanger's hardcore racist, anti-Negro affiliations, read this excerpt from Sanger's autobiography: "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women"s branch of the Ku Klux Klan"I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses"I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak"In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered." Let's recap: Con and I both agree that Margaret Sanger desired forced sterilization of people with incurable, hereditary disabilities. Sanger also befriended the K.K.K. In Con's own words, he states that she also advocated "coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating." The definition of coerce is: to persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats. Does 'undeniably feeble-minded' in this context apply to Negros as well as those with incurable, hereditary disabilities? We are discussing the views of someone that both I and Con agree was a Eugenicist and very racist towards Negros, so I think the burden of proof lies on Con to show otherwise. Remember, for me to win this debate, I need only prove that one of the reasons Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race, not prove this was it's sole intention.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

The source for the "would not tolerate bigotry" is my source [1], which itself is sourced. The sterilization Sanger recommended was not for the races she felt were inferior, but rather sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities. In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating. [1] While she considered other races inferior, there are no indications, and my opponent has given no evidence to establish, that she thought those other races were inherently "dysgenic". Sanger believed in eugenics. However, it is my contention that she was applying those principles to each race, rather than to the human race as a whole; there are no indications except for one interpretation of a single quote that she intended to wipe out races she considered generally inferior. My opponent's case requires that "African-American leaders... were all deceived by Sanger." This includes W.E.B. DuBois and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. James H. Hubert specifically requested her to create a clinic in Harlem. Sanger believed "Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment." [1] Margaret Sanger had no problems advocating for the forced sterilization of those she found to be completely unfit. This is a woman who called, in her book The Pivot of Civilization, "the blind, deaf, and mute... feeble-minded and epileptic", that, "our eyes should be opened to the terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human waste." [2] She had no problems offering her opinion generally, and no problems advocating forced sterilization. If she thought African-Americans were unfit enough to be exterminated, there are no indications she wouldn't have just said so, and advocated for their sterilization, rather than playing the more subtle and ineffective game of letting the community decide for itself when to have children. Planned Parenthood was never intended to be a compulsory system (and still is not), nor has it ever recommended that any race of parents completely stop breeding. Planned Parenthood cannot be said to have been established to exterminate anything. Rather, it was established to encourage self-determining motherhood. My opponent has produced one quote, which CAN be but does not REQUIRE itself to be interpreted in the way he chooses. Considering the context, which was a letter sent to another leader of the Negro Project (the goal of which was to deliver birth control to POOR African-American communities), Clarence Gamble, to emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, and the concept's complete absence from anywhere else in her papers, speeches, or books, it cannot be said that "Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race". [1] -- http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] -- http://books.google.com...
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

It is true that the website where I found that particular quote is opposed to my interpretation of it; however, that is merely the site's interpretation and nothing more. Also, both Con and I agree that Margaret Sanger was undoubtedly racist... why, then, would she be quoted as saying she would not tolerate bigotry among her staff? Con, please provide a source for your quote, as I'm confident that it's context will paint a different picture. Margaret Sanger's racist history supports my interpretation of the quote, as opposed to Con's. I concede that she was supported by many African-American leaders; however, if my interpretation of the controversial quote holds true, they were all deceived by Sanger. Here is a quote from Margaret Sanger, in the April 1932 issue of her publication, Birth Control Review, which supports the fact that Margaret Sanger wanted to use force to exterminate races of people she thought were unfit: "Give dysgenic groups [people with 'bad genes'] in our population their choice of segregation or [compulsory] sterilization."
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. Pro makes a bold claim, unsupported by the context of the quote he uses. While the quote in question CAN be read in the manner Pro is using it as, it can also be read as Sanger's desire to prevent the RUMOR of extermination to get out and become popular. "New York University's"Margaret Sanger Papers Project, clarifies that Sanger, in writing that letter, "recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the"Jim Crow"South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim." [1] Margaret Sanger was a racist, undoubtedly, as were many of her time period. However, she also worked closely with the African American community, and "would not tolerate bigotry among her staff". She was supported by many African-American leaders. Pro's own source [2] is arguing against his motion. [1] " http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] " http://www.nyu.edu...
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood to exterminate the Negro race

This is a quote by Margaret Sanger, commenting on the 'Negro Project' in a letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, December 10, 1939: "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don"t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (1) The Negro Project was founded by Margaret Sanger, under the Birth Control Federation of America in 1939. Margaret Sanger had the Birth Control Federation of America re-named to Planned Parenthood. (2) (1) Sanger manuscripts, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts (2) http://www.nyu.edu...
In order to stop global warming, We should kill all babies.

While your article makes a compelling argument for the primitive compulsion of why Man kills one another, It does not directly debate the ethical or moral reasoning for the action. Taking your argument, Since humans are genetically predisposed to kill each other according to R. Douglas Fields Ph. D. , And since they are "going to kill each other no matter what", Arguably wouldn't it make more sense to "get some use out of it" and let them kill each other? Not everyone, Genetic predisposition or not, Wants to kill another person. In fact, Most people do not. So why not take the people with homicidal tendencies and allow them to take it out on each other? The mass majority of those people will be adults, The largest contributors to climate change, And with this action, A large portion of the problem will take care of itself. Now you may ask, Wouldn't this also be a breach of ethics? Perhaps it is, But these are people who are capable of defending themselves when and if needed. While you claim killing babies is "easy", Most people, Or parents, Are not so willing to participate in the execution of their children. Also, If you kill every baby, There will be no future generation to preserve the earth for, And therefore make any efforts towards earth conservation worthless. Instead, Raise the children with a more environment-conscious state of mind, Teach them to care for their planet, And Earth will reap the benefits and make progressive steps towards world peace.
In order to stop global warming, We should kill all babies.

Investing in research for renewable energy costs money that we could be using to build a US-Mexico Border wall, But muduring all babies is simple and easy. Killing babies solves because even if we put money into more energy efficient fuels for cars, There will be other factors to global warming that will still be caused by humans. We would not have to worry about electing environment-conscious government officials into office or creating solar powered cars if all babies were dead. You also say that killing babies isn't ethical, But this is not at all the case. Humans are genetically predisposed to kill each other according to R. Douglas Fields Ph. D. And author of The New Brain. This shows that people are going to kill each other no matter what, So we might as well get some use out of it by letting them kill babies. This would get the killing out of most people's systems and may even lead to world peace. Although killing babies may seen unethical to retards like you, It is actually one of the most progressive steps we can take towards wold peace. https://www. Psychologytoday. Com/us/blog/the-new-brain/201610/humans-are-genetically-predisposed-kill-each-other https://climate. Nasa. Gov/causes/
In order to stop global warming, We should kill all babies.

While humans are the main contributors to climate change, Killing babies won't solve anything. A better and longer lasting proposal would be to invest in research for renewable energy and place more restrictions on the allowed amount of pollutants released by manufacturers during the manufacturing process. A great start to this would be to elect more environment-conscious government officials into office. Having people such as former coal-lobbyist Andrew Wheeler as EPA Chief would not be ideal for he would be more inclined to aid with fossil fuel industries. While we have no say in who is EPA Chief, We do vote for officials, I. E. , The President and Senate, Who can appoint whomever they so choose to the position. With a better focus on environmental preservation, We can then begin to focus on reusable resources, Such as solar powered cars. Cars are a large contributor to greenhouse gases such as CO2 which stay within the atmosphere and absorb then re-emit infrared radiation, Warming the lower atmosphere and surface. Solar cars do not create greenhouse gases and do not contribute to noise pollution. There are other ways to reduce our effect and usage of fossil fuel that are a lot more ethical, And logical, Than killing innocent, Defenseless babies. https://www. Acs. Org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/what-is-the-greenhouse-effect. Html https://www. Dasolar. Com/solar-energy/solar-powered-cars