BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is King Dedede One of the Best Characters in Super Smash Bros for Wiiu/3DS? Reissue

Thank you for accepting the challenge. I make 4 points. Prima Games is the source for all of these. 1) King Dedede is the 3rd heaviest character. This is good because then it is harder for opponents to launch him. 2) Despite being a heavyweight, King Dedede has multiple jumps, allowing him a better recovery and aerial mobility. 3) King Dedede's attacks have good range, good knockback, and do massive damage. His side smash, though it has long startup, has incredible range and can do up to 24% damage! Even his dash attack can KO lighter opponents with under 100% damage! King Dedede's throws also have good range. 4) King Dedede is great at edge-guarding. Since he has a good recovery, he can jump off the stage, suck opponents in, spit them out, and still be able to recover. If this doesn't work, or if King Dedede wants to stay on the stage, he can just through a gordo at the opponent. Gordos are interesting when it comes to edge-guarding. So as you can see, King Dedede has many strengths that prove that he is a good character in Super Smash Bros.
Is King Dedede One of the Best Characters in Super Smash Bros for Wiiu/3DS? Reissue

Note: this is a reissue of a previous debate I failed to make time to argue in. Here are the rules: 1) Debaters will make their statements using lists, such as this one, but they can use any form of it (1. 2. 3. , a. b. c., etc.). I will use this one that the rules are made of. 2) THERE IS TO BE ABSOLUTELY NO FORM OF ANY CRUDE, CRUEL, HARASSING, OR IMMORAL LANGUAGE OR REFERENCES THEREOF. 3) Debaters will list at least one source of information to back up their arguments. The same source can be used for different arguments, but a source must be listed on all arguments made. 4) The category says games; however, pretend it says video games or something similar. This was my original argument when I first issued this debate: "My first argument is that King Dedede is not low on the smashboards tier list. he is #26 of 48. Here is the link: http://smashboards.com...... There is another tier list I would like to mention, which can be found at http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net......, And King Dedede is one of the second best characters." I make another argument: Just because King Dedede is slow doesn't mean he has potential. Players who practice may adapt to his speed.
should openly gay people be allowed in the military

Even if we assume those numbers to be entirely true, and truly representative of the ENTIRE United States, look at the division there; that's a slim majority, at best; it's like drawing one giant line down the center of the United States; what this means is, for as many people as would be happy to allow gays in the military, there would be nearly as many jumping up in protest over the sudden jump from a few states allowing gay marriage to completely lifting the ban on homosexuals in military service. From that article you gave us from yahoo, even Tony Perkins, Marine Veteran, declares that military service is "a privilege, not a right." So really, in our quest for equality, we have to look back to what I've said before, that our government can't hand out rights and privileges like candy; our entire society (not just a slim majority) has to be ready to accept and perform on the responsibility of accepting homosexuality. And it's an interesting statistic, because it says that only 2,046 were interviewed; while this may seem like a big number, the U.S. has a population of around 300 million; 2,000 voters is hardly a real representation. And, in the few states that have legalized gay marriage, those were true blue, liberal states; if you try to legalize gay marriage in places like the deep south, the really conservative states, you're going to see far more violent protesting; and you still have yet to touch on the example that I have made about how, with abortion clinics, right-wing extremists have attacked, and even killed the doctors in several well-documented cases, like George Tiller, in Kansas (a southern state, and definitely a red state, I might add). Sorry to say, but Daniel Choi and the other 4 million gays (if that's even a legitimate statistic) are simply out of luck. I'm not going to make some rhetorically pleasing 'stepping-stone' argument like I have in the past, I'm just going to tell you straight - people are not ready for this yet; from the statistic that you yourself provided, I've already shown that it's essentially half in favor, half opposed; until we have a legitimate consensus, then the safety and sanctity of the lives and rights of the homosexual community would be endangered by delving straight into equality now; in the real world, honestly, it's better to be removed from service than to be physically harmed, or even killed. While you say there's nothing wrong with being gay, obviously a good portion of people believe otherwise; and, until this conflict between the left and right is resolved, until gays are accepted by all levels of society, and until society is ready to shoulder the responsibility of tolerance and understanding, you're not only going to have to hold off on dishing out this privilege, but you'll most certainly have to vote CON.
should openly gay people be allowed in the military

First off don't say that society is against homosexuals in the military 56% of voters said don't ask don't tell should not exist. and 50% of people with family in the military agreed while only 43% disagreed http://news.yahoo.com... (those numbers are in the last 2 paragraphs) To your argument that allowing gays to serve in the military could lead to violent protests from right wing extremists. The majority of the country thinks gay marriage should not be legal, but when it became legal in 4 states there were peaceful protests but no major violent ones and right wing people are way more passionate about same sex marriage than they are about don't ask don't tell so if their weren't violent protests about gay marriage why would there be about getting rid of don't ask don't tell. Gay people did not choose to be gay, straight people don't choose to be straight. It's not right to ban 4 million people from joining the military just because of the way they are. We try to encourage people to join the military but when someone is gay we turn them away. Their are very few Arabic speaking solders in the military Dan Choi was one of them because of don't ask don't tell he was kicked out. One of the problems with this country is that we try to shame homosexuals that's what don't ask don't tell is doing gay people shouldn't have to lie theirs nothing wrong with being gay the military is making it seem like it is wrong by making gay solders stay in the closet
should openly gay people be allowed in the military

The military is far different from civilian life; there are rules, discipline, and the military is definitely not a democracy. What I'm saying is not that gays can't be disciplined, but rather that the military follows a far more rigid structure, far more. .. socialistic, I would say. Just because a group of people want equal privileges doesn't mean that they have to be given them in the Armed Forces; equality is great, but think about it this way; a lot of people still aren't ready to accept gays into military service; think of the progression with blacks; it didn't happen in a matter of years; it took decades, centuries for things to be the way they are now; you can see that this historically set precedent shows us that we have to ease into equality; sure, maybe a few decades down the road or so, gays will be fully integrable; but, without a consensus among the population, and such a rigid military, unwilling to change, this is one social goal that must be put on the back burner, for now. I'd like to clear that up; our government is not morally obligated to provide equal rights, I'm sorry to say. I'm not saying we have to live in a dictatorship, but people need to understand that rights and privileges can't be given away like candy; We need to balance these rights with certain social responsibilities; the 'right' to military service can only be delegated once society accepts the responsibility of respecting gays and treating them as equals; obviously, the public at large has not entirely done this; therefore, it would be foolish and unsafe for the government to distribute these rights to gays at this point in time; as many parades and demonstrations there were for gay rights, actually distributing these kinds of rights, especially military service, will lead to even larger, possibly violent demonstrations against those rights by right-wing extremists; think about it like this: with abortion, a lot of right-wingers are prone to attack and even kill the doctors at the abortion clinics; in the same way, it's very likely that, once liberalizing or erasing laws banning gays from the military, there will be equivalent violence against homosexuals in and out of the military. So, because society is not yet ready to accept and perform on the responsibility of acceptance and tolerance, we cannot allow the government, at least at the present time and near future, to distribute the privilege of entering military service to the homosexual community; in the future, when the society is almost unanimously ready to accept homosexuality as a way of life, only then will it be safe for gays to have these kinds of rights.
should openly gay people be allowed in the military

In the interests of fairness, I'll allow my opponent to make the first actual argumentation; allow me to simply provide a couple of opening clarifications. First, keep in mind that we're using the word should, implying some kind of moral imperative to allow openly gay people the privilege of military service. This means that, we're not talking about whether or not allowing gays into the military would be practical; I don't have to discuss the practicality of such a plan, whether it would save time, or money, or anything like that; my only burden today is to prove that we do not have a binding moral imperative to allow gays into military service. Second of all, keep in mind that this particular topic is discussing how things ought to be right now; that's the question of the resolution; so what my opponent must prove is that, right now, we have a moral obligation to overturn all existing laws and allow openly gay people into American Military Service. I will stand down for now, and wait for the PRO to build his position. Good luck.
The utter silliness of god, thus proving god is not a god and why you should not believe in him

"Likewise, cosmologist Stephen Hawking echoes this understanding in his book The Grand Design. He writes, Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing". Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." So I really don't care what your teeny tiny little mind thinks. Oh and oh yeah since your 14 year old mind is so raw and blank, and clearly not up for a conversation/ argument, but only in a stupid little meager 14 year old goo goo ga ga attempt to infuriate me, well NEWSFLASH: it doesn't ever work my child, then where did your god come from? He couldn't have always been. That's stupid and silly because you cannot even prove he exists. No one can. No one has even been able to. Now dry up and blow away. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say. Bye.
The utter silliness of god, thus proving god is not a god and why you should not believe in him

Well that has nothing to do with the argument and shows you to be an utter teeny bopper at best, probably 14 tops, not 20 as your stupid idiotic profile states. Regardless Stephen Hawking and his colleague have come up with a mathematical equation proving that something does come from nothing. Yes, mathematical equations are the only facts that there are. In other words 2 + 2 = 4 no matter which language you speak. YOUR pathetic pitiful god can be disproved no matter which language you speak. In other words your maggoty god was not needed to have created the known universe. Bye.
Tidepods Taste Good

I'm not going to taste one, because I would die, but I'm sure toxic chemicals taste icky. There's no doubt about that. They don't taste like roses- there's bleach and stuff in there. Poison ivy is pretty, but if it gets on your skin you fell like you're in Hell. This is simple. Tide pods are icky and I'm sure that if they're not meant for human consumption they weren't designed to taste good.
Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven

The National Academy of Science says "mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation"(1) and that "Evolution explains natural phenomena by building on observations that can be tested and analyzed"(2) Case- My position is that the experiments that have been conducted and observations from the fossil records do not support that change from one species to another has occured by this method. For clarification- a species is animals that can breed with each other, so by defintion the finches on Galapagos island are one species. According to the theory of evolution, beneficial mutations acted upon natural selection provide the driving force behind natures production of new creatures. Thus we get birds, dinosaurs, people, etc by these means. The Academy says this has been proven by observation and experiments. My position is the observations and experiemnts have not proven their case. 1. http://evolution.berkley.edu... 2. www8.nationalacademics.org
Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven

Let me first address you made toward toward respective voters. You said I dropped the argument about chimanzee-human relation. You had no sources in your first round therefore I did not need to address those points. In adition, you did not address the catastrophe argument which flies in the face of evolution by random mutation killing out the undesirables and slowly replacing them with the more fit. Let me discuss the fossil record. You admit that the fossil record has very few transitional forms since you are now arguing for punctuated equilibriam. There is a small sub set of people who knew the fossil record did not match the theory so they had to come up with something to match the record. Others have come up with the hopefully monster theory. The problem is that they have given up on explaining the mechanism by which evolution works. The theory then becomes one of a metaphysical idea that can not be tested. It removes the theory even further from science. The neo darwinists at least have a mechanism that can be tested. You mention Archaeopteryx in relation to the fossil record. The problem is that it has no predecessors. The fossils that look like it lived millions of years after it did. The fossils that precede it look nothing like it. It sems to be an odd creation that went nowhere knid of like the edsel ford. In addition I state again "the extreme rarity" of the fossil reord is the "trade secret of paleontology". You mention bacteria. There are more studies to be done with this no doubt. However a few points-this could be a design element which would take this debate in another direction. They could be designed to adapt to enviroments when tranposae enzymes on the pOAD2 plasmid were activated. The bigger question is if rapidly mutating bacterium were proof of evolution, then after a few billion years of evolution, the only life forms we would have would be extremly sturdy bacteria and virusis. I mean people develop tolerance for things all the time but they don't turn into new creatures. consider malaria-It is a ferocious parasite that loves to attack anything that gets in its way, However, it needs a warm climate to reproduce. If a mutant parasite evolved that could handle lower temps, it could invade areas now closed to it. It has not done that. Where is evolution? Where is the science? Now let us return to the fruit fly. On e xperiment the fly was selected for a drease in bristles and in another for an increase in bristles starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles. After many generations the scientists were able to lower the bristle average to 25. What happened then, the line became sterile and died out. On the other side they were able to rais the average bristle to 56 bristles in the other experiment, then they dies out. Why? because mutations are by and large bad and harmful and there limits to change. In conclusion, I want to thank my opponent. It has been fun. . http://wikipedia.org... www. pathlights-fruitflies Animal species and evolution Ernst Mayr1963 Darwin on Trial Phillip Johnson The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe
Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven

Let me begin by saying I will not be able to stipulate that evolution is true since the underlying premise of the debate is that I do not believe that the evidence supports the theory. I directed the debate toward two things it has not conclusively shown-evidence and analysis. According to the theory,beneficial mutations acted upon natural selection to create new creatures such as the bat from the squirrel. Most mutations are harmful but supposedly a good mutation slips into the gene pool and these new mutations created new animals. If this is true and we could speed up the evolutinary process, we should be able to show it in the lab. Enter the fruit fly. It is perfect for studybecause it goes from egg to adult in about 10 days. Since the early 1900's, multiplied millions of fruit fly generations have been bred and studied in labs for different mutations. So far wide have been the studies, that it is the equivalent of millions of years of supposed evolutionary time. The scientists have found they could only produce small changes and then sterility sets in because mutaions are harmful and have limits. What do see after all the experiments done on them? ? We still see fruit flies! That is all the best minds of research see. One researcher named Richard Goldschmidt reacted this way, "After observing fruit flies for many years, he fell into despair-the changes he said"were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined into one specimen, there would still be no new species"(1) My next point is analyzing the fossil records. Fossil records should on the whole support the claim that today's complex organisms evolved step by tiny step based on mutations and natural selection. It is generally conceded that the fossil evidence is stable over long periods of time. This is called "stasis" in the field of evolution. Then new forms appear already developed without the eviedence of preceding transitional forms. Even Darwin himself knew the record did not support his theory and the record has actually become worse since his day. In fact it was not religous people who opposed it at first but palentologis since they knew the fossil record did not support it. They analyised it and found it wanting. The extreme rarity of transitional forms has been dexcribed as the "great trade secret of palentology")2)In addition, extinctions are typically due to catastrophies such as comets not imaginary evolutionary forces that kill out weaker species and bring forth their stronger more able cousins. This "flies" in the face of evolutionay theories. Evolution has many holes in it and the evidence is lacking in how species develop. If it is a science, it should stand up to testing, which I think it has not. I turn the time over to my opponent. 1. Darwin Retired by Norman Macbeth 1971 p.33 2. Darwin on trial pp59-60 wikipeadia-fruit flies www. talkorigons. org
Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven

I accept.Before I begin, I wish to define a few things.Mutation - Change in the DNA sequence of a gene [1][2][3]Gene - Unit of heredity in a living organism [4]I also wish to stipulate that Pro accept, and does not question, the theory of evolution itself, nor the idea that genes are passed down from generation to generation. If Pro would like to debate those ideas, I would be happy to do so on another debate.Genes, as per the definition above, are the units of heredity in an organism. They control the characteristics of said organism. Microevolution, or the change in allelic frequencies of genes in a gene pool over time[5], can and does occur without mutations. However, macroevolution, evolution that occurs above the level of species[6], studies speciation and the change from one species into another over time. How, one might ask, does a chimpanzee and human split off from a common ancestor and become incapable of breeding? Their genomes are different, i.e. they (chimps) do not have the same genomes as we do. They do not share about 4% of their genome with us[7]. How, then, did their genome become different from ours when we shared a common ancestor? Answer: their DNA sequence, and ours, changed. This change in the DNA sequence is exactly what a mutation is. It simply, by definition is what happens, and here is a distinct case. More cases of the same thing occuring (stretching out to all the number of species ever existing on the planet) can be elaborated on if need be.Now that a specific case of this occuring has been elaborated on, the general concept behind it can be discussed. An organism differs from another by its traits, which are determined by its genome. Different traits mean a different genome, which means that at some point, the genome of the common ancestor of the two organisms was changed. This change in the DNA sequence, the genome, of an organism is what mutation is. Therefore, there is direct evidence for mutation being the source of genetic diversity. The concept behind evolution supports this. Back to you, Pro.
Nov PF Topic

Resolved: in response to the current crisis, a government should prioritise the humanitarian needs of refugees over its national interests.Structure:1. I create debate, you provide constructive arguments2. I provide constructives, you rebute3. I rebute, you defend4. I defend, you waive.Rules:1. Follow structure without breaking flow of debate (forfeiture or defending before I even rebute, etc)2. No deconstructional semantics - all definitions are up for debate3. In the end of every round provide a tongue twister. 4. Failure to follow the above rules will result in an automatic forfeitureTongue Twister:Pad kid poured curd pulled cod
People should donate 10% of their money and/or time to charity

There is currently a lot of unmet need out there in the world. There is a lot more money that people could give to charity and some groups volunteer significantly more than other groups that could be doing more. So I am arguing that most people with employment and in good health {especially the religious because helping people and tithing are featured in the Bible} should be giving and volunteering at least 10% of their money or time each year to charity. {If they are not already doing it}.
People should donate 10% of their money and/or time to charity

I am sorry to hear about your grandpa. It is a very nasty disease. The amount of charity and volunteering would still enable people to look after themselves. {One is not being asked to give all their money and time to charity}. They also have a choice how and where to contribute {donations or volunteer and which charities}. Society has improved despite idiots. There are idiots that drive on the roads which contribute to the high death toll from crashes but there are places that have managed to reduce the death toll and the number of idiots or despite them. So if I could argue anything it would be things are not as bad as they seem. That we can make things better. That helping people in need should be seen as a good thing for the people being helped, the community overall and the person doing the helping.