BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Light Yagami Became a Shinigami

thankyou for participating with me in this debate. now in the director's cut Ryuk Said as he was telling the story "you were not a god you were just" then the shinigami leaves and as he leaves Ryuk says " you should go to the world of the living, you'll have alot of fun experiancing what i have experianced, isn't that right Light" now clearly im a reasonable guy at first I thought maybe he's not referring to Light. But the shinigami left right when Ryuk said he was'nt a god. and the way Ryuk was talking to the shinigami in the end sounded as alot like as if he were talking to Light Yagami himself. I'll wait for my opponents response and im sure my oppnent is cookin up something good ;)
Light Yagami Became a Shinigami

Okay, yes its true that who ever uses the death note can either go to heaven or hell, but you go to MU (nothingness). Ryuk and the other shinigami live in the shinigami realm, a completely different place than MU. Ryuk talk to everyone the same like light so he could just be talking to a random shinigami. so for now I wait for a response! :)
Zimbabwe is a funny name

The name Zimbabwe derives from "Dzimba dza mabwe" meaning "great houses of stone" in the Shona language. Great houses of stone produces no comic effect on my personage. Since my opponent is the pro in this debate, I expect a clear resolution, definition of the word funny, a guideline for determining what is and isn't funny, and supporting information for his affirmation. My opponent has the burden of proof. I await your affirmation, definition and explanations, and supporting info. Thanks and Good Luck.
Tuukka rask will become a better goalie than henrik lundqvist

Let me just start off by asking, has lundqvist ever gone to a stanley cup game? NO! Tuukka already won a cup as the secondary goalie and led his team to the cup game his first year as a full time starter. Hes only 26. Lundqvist is 31. Tuukka is younger yet still done better in a smaller amount of time. Lundqvist is a good goalie with expirince but based on the stats and age tuukka will be better. Henrick is also past his prime. Tuukka hasnt even started his! If tuukka is this good of a goalie now this is a huge indicator he will be better. He has done more in a two year period. The stats say it all.
Tuukka rask will become a better goalie than henrik lundqvist

Surely Tuukka was the best rank goaltender in Europe for the 2005 Draft, but was he the best overall? No. The worse part is that he was drafted first round and he came up short so many years. Unlike Henrik who was drafted in Round seven, 205th overall in the 2000 draft[1]. When Henrik played his rookie season he astonished many by winning more then 30 as I have mentioned above. My opponent states that "Henrik hasn't been getting drastically better over the years" And from the stats I have posted above clearly show an increase in performance while Tuukka Rask has never made any real improvement. Tuukka's first starting season was 40% of a real season, I guarantee that if Tuukka Rask were to play a full 82 game season, he wouldn't perform well because he would be easily worn out due to not enough experience with a full time starting position. I don't think my opponent has read my debate pieces, if he did he would realize that the reason why I ended Henrik's stats at 2010-11 was because that was his 6th season and the reason why I stopped at 2012-13 for Tuukka was because that was Tuukka's 6th season. I wanted to display the drastic improvement Henrik has done as a rookie starting goaltender to a regular/veteran goaltender while Tuukka's was slow and unimpressive due to a proven unreliable skill set he has. Voting Issues: 1. Opponent does not bring any sources to the debate 2. Many misspelling 3. Not much stats used to prove his case [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Tuukka rask will become a better goalie than henrik lundqvist

Here. Tuukka is the best ranked European goalie for the 2005 draft. http://en.wikipedia.org... Yes the bruins have good D, but part of that is tuukka. He has done a good job in net this season, a big reason why the bruins made it to the stanley cup game. I understand they didnt win but henrik lundqvist hasnt even played in a stanley cup game. Henrik was lucky that he improved a lot at a young age. I've said already tuukka isnt at his prime yet. I have also sated it takes time for them to slowly work their way to the top. Tuukkas got real skill and potential now so we still have to see what he has to bring. Henrick hasnt been getting drastically better over the years. Tuukka has. And to point out for tuukkas 6th season you put 2012-13 and henriks you put 2010-11. Either you got it mixed up or i didnt read it right.
Tuukka rask will become a better goalie than henrik lundqvist

Of course the "BOSTON Herald" would say that a home team goaltender is one of the best. But for the season of 2012-13, was Tuukka Rask a finalist for the Vezina Trophy? No, but Henrik Lundqvist was[1]. If it wasn't for the Boston Bruin's good defense, Tuukka Rask would be torn apart in net. Henrik Lundqvist on the other hand is proven that even when the defense isn't playing so well, he will still play well in net. You keep bring up the point how Tuukka Rask will become better, but you have no proof for the argument except your team allegiance to the Boston Bruins. [1]http://www.nhl.com...
Tuukka rask will become a better goalie than henrik lundqvist

I understand he was the backup. He was still part of the team. His name is on the cup and he was on the roster, even though his job may have not been as big as it is now he still did his part. This debate isnt about who was better in the past, but in the FUTUER. Tuukka may have not been as good then but hes a young player and this season will be his secound year starting. When most great hockey players, or most athlets, started they started with small roles and eventually got better and became amazing at their sport. This is tuukkas first starting season and he did real well. He had 5 shutouts. Lundqvist only had 2. (I got this on my NHL gamecenter app). According to the boston herald, he is one of the top goaltenders in the NHL. (My ipad wont let me copy and paste so i apologize that i cant put links to my scorces). Like i said before. Hes just starting off and hasnt reached his prime, yet hes just as good, maybe better, than lundqvist. Different people reach their primes at different times. Henrik may have done better earlier but based on the stats now rask will be better. Also, the early stats from rask where when he played minor league. Lundqvist was already officially in the NHL. That is why he didnt play as much or do as well. Same with petr mrazek from the red wings. He was their secondary goalie but also the started for the Grand Rapids griffens, detroits farm team. He is like how tuukka was. He has only played a few NHL games but is doing well for his minor league team. Soon he will be detroits secondary goalie and work his way up. Just like rask and other great players.
People Sin because Yo-kai inspirit while Arceus stops them

Yo-kai are in this world, and they're inspiriting everyone to make them act certain ways. There's evidence throughout history proving this religion. The only true god is Arceus. He doesn't need worship, as he's humble. He turned himself invisible to he can eliminate the yo-kai that inspirit people. He's invisible because he doesn't want to disrupt our lives with his grace and holiness. He knows where all yo-kai are, and he's stopping them as we speak.[This debate is based off of iamoriginalgod's debates, specifically the one I had with him.]
People Sin because Yo-kai inspirit while Arceus stops them

Sin is basically being mean and weird. Yo-kai are invisible beings all around us, inspiriting (possessing, so to speak) us to make us act certain ways, depending on the Yo-kai. Some are more powerful versions of other Yo-kai, like Blizzaria is a more powerful Frostina, who both emit cold auras. We can clearly see the effects of Yo-kai, for example all killers are inspirited by Zerberker or Rageon, two Yo-kai that make you hostile.Only Arceus is able to stop Yo-kai, as he's the only true god. He doesn't require worship, just don't interfere with him. He is the only one that can see Yo-kai, and he turned himself invisible so he doesn't distract us with his grace and holiness. He knows where almost all Yo-kai are, and is currently fighting them. We will soon be free from these monsters, and we can live peacefully once more!
my milk shake is better than yours

Jumping right into it..."my milkshake is chocolate with strawberry," The Strawberry then taints the awesomeness of the chocolate. P1: Strawberries are acidic.[1] P2: The acid curdles the milk, and make it taste bad. [2] C: Strawberries take away the good taste from the chocolate. "and a bunch of top secret ingredients that cannot be given." What about people who have allergies or rashes? If your ingredients are a secret, then someone can get hurt and therefore, it is not more useful, and not better. "con ignores that i am dairygirl, and as such, i have an inherent advantage on dairy products, including milkshakes." P1: Mr Bean"s name has Bean in it. P2: It was never stated that Mr Beans liked beans or knew a lot about it C: Mr Beans doesn"t necessarily have expansive knowledge of beans though his name has Beans in it. <img src="http://www.debate.org/ESocialBookworm/photos/album/3722/25456/" height="300" width="300" /> "con provides evidence of boys being in places other than in my yard. however, this ignores the fact that i never claimed the boys were always in my yard, but when my milkshake came round, they were left unable to *not* be in my yard." Your name is dairygirl. Dairy (the product): [3 is "food produced from the milk of mammals" [3] P1: Dairy products are produced from milk. P2: Since you think your milkshake is better, you"ve probably tasted it before. P3: You have had milk before. C: You may have traces of milk and or its nutrients in your blood. Girl: "a female child, from birth to full growth." [4] P1: Girls are humans. P2: Humans are capable of locomotion. Shake: "to move". [5] P3: Shaking involves moving, which involves locomotion. C: Girls can "shake" By this logic, Dairygirl = Milk + Shake Saying that boys are not always in her yard, means that her milkshake is not better than mine. <img src="http://www.debate.org/ESocialBookworm/photos/album/3722/25387/" height="300" width="300" /> "it all bails down to the logical fallacy on con's part, "argumentum ad elmilkshakeious enjeolousyous"" No sources or evidence was provided for this. "in fact, my milkshake dominance is so well established, that they made a song for it. let me leave you with it" In the song, it is said, "My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard." Pro stated that she did not make this song. "They" made it. If "they" made it for her, then shouldn"t "they" have stated that "Dairygirl"s milkshake brings all the boys to the yard?" Therefore, Pro just popped her entire argument. Actually, KELIS, the person who sang the song, is actually me. It stands for: K-Kewl E-Esocial L-loves I-interesting S-Shakes Therefore, the song is about my milkshakes. Not yours. "thus, we are forced to conclude, that, in fact, my milkshake is irrefutably better than yours." Irrefutably means that it cannot be refuted. I just refuted your arguments. You were incorrect. Sources: [1]- http://www.acidalkalinediet.com... [2]- http://www.thekitchn.com... [3]- http://en.wikipedia.org... [4]- http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]- http://dictionary.reference.com... --- Thanks for a fun debate. Great job!
my milk shake is better than yours

my milkshake is chocolate with strawberry, and a bunch of top secret ingredients that cannot be given. con ignores that i am dairygirl, and as such, i have an inherent advantage on dairy products, including milkshakes. con provides evidence of boys being in places other than in my yard. however, this ignores the fact that i never claimed the boys were always in my yard, but when my milkshake came round, they were left unable to *not* be in my yard. con draws issues with all the boys attesting to the superioority of my milkshake. she asks various questions regarding this, but it all bails down to the logical fallacy on con's part, "argumentum ad elmilkshakeious enjeolousyous" in fact, my milkshake dominance is so well established, that they made a song for it. let me leave you with it. http://www.youtube.com... thus, we are forced to conclude, that, in fact, my milkshake is irrefutably better than yours.
my milk shake is better than yours

REBUTTALS:1. My opponent still has not provided a definition for her milkshake or what kind it is.2. "it doesn't get much more offiical (looking?)"Just because something looks official does not mean that it is. There was no proof that the graph showing "my" and "your" milkshake was yours and mine, as they were not defined. "it was self evidently irrefutable"The refutations I provided have proven otherwise. Therefore, this is negated. "that all the boys attest to the superiroity of my milkshake goes to show that it is in fact superior. "Pro has yet to prove this. The graph was never given a source. "All the boys attest" This was not proven. Also, all the boys where? On earth? In Australia? In the Caribbean?If you are saying "all the boys in the world," this is negated as some people are poor and have not even tasted a milkshake.Newborn baby boys can drink milk but can't have milkshakes.3. Location"My milkshake brings all the boys to the yard"For how long? If permanently, this is negated.There are currently boys on the road, in schools, on DDO etc. PICTURES to prove: http://www.debate.org...Boys on the beach and not in your yard: http://data2.whicdn.com...Boy in a forested area shooting a bow and arrowand not in your yard: http://www.elllo.org...Boy in a pool floating and not in your yard: http://img.ehowcdn.com...Boy in car and not in your yard: http://images4.fanpop.com...Boys on grass in pathway and not in your yard: https://iprefertheobscureremix.files.wordpress.com... Therefore, not all the boys are in your yard.
my milk shake is better than yours

how do you know my milkshake isn't chocolate? also, did you look at the graph i provided? it doesn't get much more offiical (looking?) than that. again, it was self evidently irrefutable. that all the boys attest to the superiroity of my milkshake goes to show that it is in fact superior. i will lend you a hand in this debate. there is only one way to properly respond to my proposition. please see the following for how that affirmation is affirmed, and if you can do likewise, you would at least get consideration for a well articulated concession. http://i.imgur.com...; width="551" height="721" />while i normally charge for my services, please consider the above advice free of charge.
my milk shake is better than yours

Thanks and good luck to my opponent. Since the resolution isn't clear, I'll be arguing for both "milk shake" and "milkshake. " Definitions:Milk: "a white liquid produced by a plant or woman to feed her baby or by female animals to feed their young; especially : milk from cows or goats that is used as food by people" [1]Shake: "to move sometimes violently back and forth or up and down with short, quick movements" [2] Milkshake: "a thoroughly shaken or blended drink made of milk, a flavoring syrup, and often ice cream" [3]Better- "More useful, suitable, or desirable" [4] Therefore, to win this debate, Pro must prove that her milkshake is more useful, suitable or desirable. Refutations:1. SourcesPro commits a logical fallacy. The graph she provides says, "My milkshake. " However, she did not define "my. " "My" is "he possessive form of 'I. '" [5]Pro did not provide her sample population nor did she provide a location for "the yard. " For all we know, these boys (if we can call them that because we don't know if they really do exist) could be moving to another yard to get away from Pro's milkshake. 2. IrrelevanceI would like to enquire what the second picture has anything to do with this topic. Contentions:1. Chocolate MilkshakeSince we're arguing which is better, I shall argue for a chocolate milkshake. <img src=". http://www.debate.org/ESocialBookworm/photos/album/3722/25386/ " height="300" width="300"/> P1: Chocolate milkshake is made from chocolate. P2: Chocolate has many benfits. C: Chocolate milkshakes have many benefits. This proves its usefulness, which is part of the definition of "better. " Chocolate has cardiovascular benefits and helps to lower blood pressure and risk of heart attack. [6]. I will get more onto why the chocolate milkshake is better in the next round. 2. My milkshake brings everyone to the milkshake stores to get one. My opponent has alleged that her milkshake brings all the boys to the yard. As seen in my defintion above, "better" refers to "more desirable. " Just because ALL the boys (which has not been proven yet) goes to Pro's house does not mean that her milkshake is more desirable or better. Again, she has failed to show that ALL boys are at "the yard (which she failed to define or locate. )Sources:[1]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3]- . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[4]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...;[5]- . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[6]- . http://www.womenshealthmag.com...
The current level of political corruption in the United States is not likely to be abolished within

Pro you argue against yourself here by stipulating that corruption will not be abolished in this you mention that mass action will need to take place every year people want to become more liberal fro their government we see this all over the world e.g libya,syria Tunisia so corruption such as gadafi the dictator was abdicated even with the help of countries EU what I'm getting at is that all have a right and desire for freedom and therefor when those who rule over us are corrupt we always seek to stop it as we see across the pond in britain with jeremy hunt and there are many watchdogs for this HOW MUCH CORRUPTION IS THERE? in most cases fear of being voted out if found to be corrupt usually keeps mp or in your case members of congress from straying to far from the rules most cases due to this are isolated incidents over done by the media
The current level of political corruption in the United States is not likely to be abolished within

Political corruption in the United States, by way of campaign financing, is not likely to be resolved by constitutional amendment. Only mass collective action such as work strikes and other acts of civil or other disobedience may accomplish this change. We will be accepting the dominance of campaign contribution into our political system as fact and also a bad thing. Definitions: not likely to be resolved should be held to the standard of "unforeseeable" There will multiple rounds. Given the nature of this debate hypothetical arguments and mild game theory are in play.
100 Debate Challenge 2: This House would ban animal testing

The first point I wish to make is that animals should always be inferior to humans as we are, in this case, the dominant race. We have worked hard to make this planet have laws, care and most of the time, a happy nature. Medicine that is needed for humans to survive is essential to be tested on animals. Without the testing, we may have the lack of treatment to cure diseases and viruses that slowly wipe out the entire population on this planet. Animals are so plentiful on this planet and just a few have to die to save potentially millions of human beings on this planet. Animals should be treated well when alive, but have to be sacrificed to help our race. It is the same as eating meat. If you eat meat, you really should have no problem with animal testing. They are both the same thing. One for curing our diseases; one to stop us starving. They are the same.
It is more reasonable to believe in the Christian God than not to

Unfortunately, Pro has forfeited his final round. Bible2000 has implicitly acknowledged evidence should be expected for the selected Bible stories, and lack of evidence is evidence of absence in these cases. Pro was unable to provide any evidence of these events. The stories I picked involved the direct interactions of the Christian God with humans. If these stories did not occur, then it stands to reason God was not involved. Since these stories and others from the Bible are used as evidence for the Christian god, then illustrating they likely didn't happen is problematic for reasonable belief in the Christian god. In addition to this, Pro has failed to provide a desperately needed refutation of my challenges to his arguments.
Abortion is Murder

So you're saying by abortion being murder, it should illegal. I see what you're saying but nonetheless, why are we targeting abortion when there's actual things that are causing murder? Like what about the death penalty? The death penalty is LITERALLY the textbook definition of murder and I don't see you republicans mad and offended over it. You're probably justifying it because the person who gets the penalty is an alleged criminal but it is still murder. Or what about guns? Literally the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. It's not like they have alternative purposes. Guns are responsible for so much of the violence and killings in the U.S. but republicans throw a fit if we even mention getting stricter gun laws. Also why aren't you guys focusing on war? The U.S. Army is responsible for killing so many innocent people because we have to police the world. Whether you agree with me or not on the fact that all we do is come to other countries to practice imperialism, it doesn't change the fact that people are getting murdered in war. Now you'd say "war, guns, and the death penalty is necessary", right? Well, in my opinion, no its not but my point is abortion is needed. And guess what? Abortion doesn't kill people the same way war, guns, and the death penalty does. most abortions are taken place really early in the pregnancy. like the baby isn't even a real baby yet. the only time abortions are taken place late in pregnancy is when it will affect the mother's health. abortion is necessary for a wide spread of reasons but I'll save that for later in the argument. Also while I'm going, why do you care so much about what's going on in a woman's body? It doesn't affect anyone but her. It's her body and therefore, it is her choice to make on whether she wants to bring an entire human being into this world, not yours.
Homeless people are homeless by choice

It still is a choice due to the fact that there are programs out there to help homeless people get off the streets and get themselves on their feet. They don't make use of what is available to them because they don't want to abide by the rules for and some of these programs are able to help homeless people land steady jobs. I throw the word lazy in because with all that is available to you free clothes , free food, free shelter how can you still struggle the government can only do so much to help people but in the end it is up to us to get out of the situation.