BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
League of Legends team-building microdebate challenge

Top: Garen vs DariusGaren's ult on opponents is based on true damage (meaning it ignores magic resist and armor) AND also based on how much health the target is already missing. Darius's ult on the other hand does NOT do true damage, and his ult is based off of how many times Darius has already struck the target. This means that Darius would have already had to attack his target several times to exploit the full power of his ult, but Garen does not have to. Garens ult > Darius's ult, so Garen > DariusMid: Katarina vs Malzahar While Malzahar's ult can do considerable damage to 'squishy tanks', it is an ult that can only target a single champion. Katarina's ult on the other hand does damage to ANY champion unfortunate enough to be close by to her when her ult is triggered. This by extension makes her far deadlier in late game team fights than Malzahar, meaning that she is the better Mid lane champion. ADC: Ashe vs SivirSivir's ult doesnt actually do damage, it merely boosts the speed of allied champions nearby. Sivir relies entirely on her Q to do damage to enemy champs, but Ashe's ult can inflict heavy damage and freeze them in place, making her the better champ, since Ashe can actually do damage with her ult.Support: Blitzcrank vs AlistarAlistar can knock enemy champs backwards, but that means he would have to get behind an enemy champion and knock them back to his own team for his team to take out that champion, which simply cant be done when champs are grouped up in team fights. Blitzcrank can pull a champ from substantial range to his team and finish them off, which is far more practical in team fightsJungle: Nunu vs Shyvana Shyvana cant do as much damage to monsters as Nunu can early game because of Nunu's Q, and Nunu has several abilities that can slow enemy champions down whereas Shyvana does not. This means when Nunu ganks a lane, he can slow the fleeing champions down and increase the odds of them getting killed, which is a quality that shyvana lacks.
League of Legends team-building microdebate challenge

Darius: Darius excels at both laning and teamfighting. In lane, he's a bully who forces his opponent out of lane and denying them farm through his harassment potential as well as sustaining using his heal. This Q allows his to both negate enemy healing while healing himself, and in teamfights, he's a tanky fighter who can switch between targets as his ult resets on kill, making him perfect pentakill material. Malzahar: If there's one thing the Void Prophet knows, it's space aids. On the side though, his AOE silence combined with his limitless mana allows him to harass constantly while staying safe from attacks himself. His ult is the show stopper of course, granting him a guaranteed kill on a squishy target thanks. Sustained harass in laning, shutdown AOE in teamfights. Sivir: Sivir's the go-to safe pick as an ADC, with easy harass and hard engage, she can poke and harass from safety and then go in for the kill when her enemy stays too long. Her spell shield allows her to resist cc and hooks, meaning she's highly resistant to enemy dives and ganks. Either they lose their farm, or they lose their lives, Sivir takes after her ancestor Azir with poke and hard engage in one. Support: Alistar Alistar is the pulveriser of bot lane. Immense CC and tankiness to boot, he's a brick in bot lane and a brick in teamfights. Easily changing the positioning of a teamfight then roaming Unbreakable while the team gets sent flying apart for easy picks. With Sivir's ult, they're a death sentence, rushing the enemy and then smashing them before they can react. Jungle: Shyvana Shyvana has a place in my heart as my very first champion. Pulled a Hermione by way of Devourer, turning from cute pick into a bombshell that destroys the enemy team. You may notice that all my champions feature both sustain and safe harass. This makes them hard to gank, and they don't require ganks, letting her sate Devourer easily and destroy at 25 minutes using high attacks and hard engage. -Duncan
Resolved: On Balance, Human Childbirth is Immoral

Resolution: "On Balance, Human Childbirth is Immoral"This debate addresses the morality of bringing new human life into this world as a whole in today's society.The burden of proof is on me to demonstrate the resolution to be true. I will argue in the following round and Con may provide rebuttals/arguments in the same round.10,000 characters.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Opening arguments, Con may rebut meRound 3: Rebuttals/ArgumentsRound 4: Rebuttals/Conclusions - No new arguments/brand new rebuttalsThis debate is impossible to accept, please leave a comment if you are interested in taking this debate up.That is all, good luck!!
Racism is completely fine because its just an opinion discrimination is the issue.

My apologies for the late start to this debate. To begin, we must first define racism- "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." [1] Racism in and of itself, is hardly an opinion, and is instead based on actions (discrimination, antagonization). Now, looking directly at your argument, and the topic of the debate- Racism is fine, discrimination isn't. This argument inherently makes no sense, due to discrimination being a key part of racism (and a part of the literal definition). Saying, "holding a negative viewpoint of a race is okay, but discriminating against them isn't okay", would be more correct, and you and I would both likely agree on that. To summarize- Pro fails to recognize that discriminating against someone based on race is racism, and therefore his argument doesn't make logical sense. It's impossible to discriminate against someone based on race and have it NOT be racism, therefore his argument, and the title of the debate is essentially "Racism is completely fine because it's just an opinion, racism is the issue" Thank you [1]- https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Racism is completely fine because its just an opinion discrimination is the issue.

I know I'll be frowned upon for this but I believe that racism is not actually the problem. All it is is an unpleasant opinion that humans are entitled to have/view. The actual problem is discrimination. Yes you are allowed to have any unpleasanr perspective and opinion you desire but you don't have any right to force it on others or treat any person differently or like they are lesser than you. Its not okay and we need to end it.
animals are awesome

Animals are awesome because they are brave. If there owner is in danger often times the animal [mainly dogs] will throw themselves in the face of danger to help and or save their owner. Animals are amazing because of how smart they are. They can learn tricks or to do things that we can do. Animals are awesome because of their affectionate nature. Animals love you and don't ask for anything in return. Animals are not mean unless they are breed to do so. Animals are awesome because they are what they are, they are cute,lovable,heroic,awesome,amazing things. Thanks,go ahead.
SDA Doctrines about the year 1844, the Heavenly Sanctuary and Investigative Judgement are Unbiblical

Okay last round. A confession on the Year 1844 I never said that it meant "from" but rather"for thy people " this meaning that the days are cutoff for those people only. I already showed you the start date as well as the timelines you need to prove my point about the start date for the 70 weeks and Daniels visions of the beasts. But to be honest I will concede the year 1844 to you. I will not claim that we know the exact date or year of atonement and I have to agree that your explanation is what I myself choose to beleive. I just knew that our doctrines all are based on Scripture but obviously you have shown the year 1844 to be misconstrued. But as for the other two I have some more arguing to do. The Heavenly Sanctuary You seem to be going on a tangent on this. Making a red herring argument. You say we ate taking things to literally yet the verses I mention about the resemblance of the sanctuary on earth being similar to the one on earth is to be taken literally. Also Ellen never said there were only two rooms in heaven. She said holy and most holy are two rooms in heaven. She never limited the amount of rooms. Since I see you've only argued against the year 1844 and it looks like you conceded the Heavenly Sanctuary is a place in Heaven. Since you haven't made any new arguments. I ask voters to see this as since BOP wasn't mentioned it is to be assumed we share it and since my opponent seems to have given up the argument of there being a sanctuary in Heaven that means I win this argument on the Heavenly Sanctuary being in existence and the doctrine behind it as BIBLICAL. Investigative Judgement Obviously you have given up on arguing against investigative judgement so I ask voters to see that two out of three doctrines have no ground for my opponent and knowing that BOP is shared leaves a clear vote for con because I have clearly explained how investigative judgement and the heavenly sanctuary ate both BIBLICAL doctrines. In conclusion... A most interesting debate. You have gave me good insight on your beliefs but I still hold fast in the two doctrines I mentioned. As for me my name is Brian N. Johnson and thank you for reading.
SDA Doctrines about the year 1844, the Heavenly Sanctuary and Investigative Judgement are Unbiblical

Hmmmm... The year 1844 Okay so you admit the word "chatak" could mean cut off. SO using what we know the days could be cut off for the people mentioned. We believe that this cut off is cut off from the previous 2300 days/years making our belief biblical. That is our proof that the 70 weeks is part of the 2300 days. The cut off works in the verse because it is only that group of people that are being addressed. This block of time is cut off for just his people and the holy city. We think we are correct about the time and that is because we got the notion from the bible verse. Therefore making the year 1844 biblical. Regarding the timeline you say we claim that the whole prophecy regarding the ram took place within the 2300 days. I don't believe this is true and would like to read your source but unfortunately there is no link so how can I or any reader trust what you are saying? Here is the timeline. http://www.preservedwords.com... Regarding your use of Ellen G. White to combat my stance won't help you. For this is what I can say. "He [Christ] planted the cross between Heaven and earth, AND WHEN the Father beheld the sacrifice of His Son, He bowed before it in recognition of its perfection. "It is enough," He said. "The Atonement is COMPLETE." Notice the upper cased words "and when". Ellen G. White was a prophet. What her visions showed were both the future and the past. I am sure she was looking into the future and saw this. So this doesn't hold much for your case. I can't say that I know for certain what Jesus was doing. Your asking me what he was doing for 1800 years but I could turn around and ask you what has he been doing for the whole history of the earth? Can you give me a solid answer? We don't know the ways of the Lord we are given only a glimpse. Yes Jesus died at the cross in atonement for our sins, this has nothing to do with cleansing the temple. Jesus died on the cross but he needed one final step and that is to cleanse the temple by sprinkling the blood in the holies of holies. That is what Adventists believe happened in 1844. http://www.sdanet.org... Your taking this debate into other grounds. I don't want to start talking about what Adventists think of the Roman Catholic Church this is about whether our beliefs on 1844, the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgement are biblical. I have shown what makes us beleive and those are BIBLICAL verses that I showed and therefore are beliefs regarding the year 1844 the investigative judgement and the heavenly sanctuary are biblical. In conclusion... Unfortunately I am out of time.
The Anaheim Ducks will win the 2015 Stanley Cup

They have the good chance yes, but that does not mean they WILL win. Initially many thought the Redwings would beat The Lightnings, but we prevailed. Now that The Lightnings have them out of the way, we have a good chance against Montreal. The Anaheim Ducks may have a good chance true, but that does not mean they WILL win. Who knows, maybe their star player gets a major injury? Maybe they lose three games next round? Anything can happen.
The Anaheim Ducks will win the 2015 Stanley Cup

I beleive that the Ducks will win going on past knowledge. In the first round they did not lose one game. Whereas the lightning had to play all 7 games of the first round. Going on that, the ducks have a better chance at winning than any other team as they are the only team to not lose a game. I beleive they will win on the previous statistics that have been given to me. They are the seeming best to win the 2015 Stanley Cup.
The Anaheim Ducks will win the 2015 Stanley Cup

The Anaheim Ducks will not win. Here is a definition on google proving it. will-Expressing inevitable events inevitable-certain to happen; unavoidable certain-known for sure; established beyond doubt I do not believe it is inevitable that they will win. It is not yet established beyond doubt. They have a chance at winning, but it is not certain. If I had to choose a team to root for, I'd have to root for the Lightnings ONLY because they are my home team. While you said they have a strong chance at winning, that means it is probable, NOT inevitable. If I had to choose the one that I believe will win I still think the Lightning have a chance to win, but since they are facing the Red Wings at this very moment I am typing, I will have to wait to see who I will root for. If The Lightnings win, then them. If the Red Wings win, then I will root for them since they were able to win. https://www.google.com... https://www.google.com...
The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

Again, my opponent is trying to make claims that because the supernatural has no proof, he is validated.This is incorrect as his premise holds a second aspect. The IDEA of the supernatural.Books, TV, and movies are valid in the real world. People read and watch daily all different shows. Entertainment is valid in the real world. Supernatural plots of these movies do not physically exist in our world. But the idea is very much used to the real entertainment side.My opponent has agreed of the supernatural's entertainment and religious value, meaning the idea is valid and holds merit in the real world.
The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

My opponent has made great deal about disproving my arguments. I submit that he has not disproved anything but pointed to other subjects such as religion and entertainment to support his assertion. I have also specified that fictional characters such as Harry Potter and Jesus of Nazareth are not real and hence stories regarding them are not valid arguments against my assertion. He has even attempted to assert that the adherence to a religion somehow makes the supernatural meaningful in some way. The idea of the supernatural is indeed the basis for numerous religions, books, movies, even psychoses. I concede that these are real effects, but they are not effects of the supernatural but of the purely natural acts of human beings. I think my has already conceded that there is no proof of the supernatural so we can dispense with any actual causal or explanatory power of the supernatural. That is the definition of real. Without it, the term is truly meaningless in the real sense, despite what my opponent would have us believe.
The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

Quotes by my opponent, in which I will highlight key points 1st Round (Premise): "I submit, therefore, that there is nothing supernatural and the idea as well as the term has no validity in the real world." Previous Round:"The IDEA of something is not the same as the thing itself." My opponents premise states even the idea of the supernatural is invalid in the real world. And then later agrees the supernatural is used often in entertainment and religion (parts of the real world).AND THEN, goes on to completely refute the IDEA of supernatural, as not even being applicable to the arguments at hand.My opponent is constantly changing the premise to fit his arguments after I have successfully disproved part of his argument (the idea of supernatural being applicable to the real world.)
The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

Am I correct is assuming you believe Harry Potter to be part of the real world? If so, please introduce me to him at the earliest possible convenience. No fictional character is real. The supernatural is no more than a plot point for these stories, as entertaining as they are. Once again, storytelling is not supernatural. The supernatural creatures in those stories are not real and therefore the idea of the supernatural as applied to the real world, is meaningless outside of a convenient setting for a story or an excuse for something that one cannot explain. The IDEA of something is not the same as the thing itself. One cannot equate the idea of an alien visitation the same as the alien visitation, for example, even though it has been the subject of lots of debate and, yes, entertainment over the years. Some even argue that alien visitation is the basis for religions, but that's a debate for another time. The belief in the supernatural, even the actions taken because of those beliefs (burning alive women believed to be witches, still happening today) do not make the supernatural any more real in spite of how desperately some with it were so. Just for the record, the words 'Under God' were not in the original pledge but added in the 1950's when the 'Red Scare' was at its greatest and people wanted to differentiate us fro the 'Godless Communists' and caved in to religion. Same goes for 'In God We Trust' on our money, before you make that argument. This country was founded on secular principles and it was intended that religion play no part in it. The Founders knew the dangers inherent a theocracy, having just left one. In summary, you have yet to show that the term 'supernatural' has any meaning in the real world beyond a cool idea for a book, a movie, or a religion.
The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

The supernatural is not all mythology to explain lightning (Zeus). Vampires and Werewolves are made up entities in which to entertain through storytelling via books, shows, and movies.Therefore, it is not a security blanket in which we grasp because of the unknown universe, its it the horror entertainment genre in which we enjoy ourselves." I submit, therefore, that there is nothing supernatural and the idea as well as the term has no validity in the real world."This is the argument at hand. "No validity" means nothing about the supernatural is valid. My opponent has conceded that parts of the "Supernatural" are utilized in entertainment, thus proving my point in showing the supernatural is relevant and valid."As you mentioned, the supernatural is a huge source of entertainment. I cannot disagree but you miss the thrust of my argument"However, my opponent uses that statement to move the goalposts of the premise. To basically state the my opponents arguments...'Nothing of the supernatural makes sense in the real world (or is invalid)' But what about today's entertainment value based around the supernatural in it's story-telling?'that doesn't count'I have conceded there is not physical proof for the supernatural. However, my opponents premise has two points, the proof of the supernatural AND the validity of the idea of things that could be considered 'supernatural'.My argument is for the latter.My religion argument is based around the IDEA of people believing in it. Religion has helped shaped numerous cultures around the world, thus making is very much part of the real world, despite any proof. (religion is based on faith, therefore proof is nonsensical).My opponents last statement: "In summary, the supernatural is important to entertainment and religion as a basis for a story but it has no effect in and of itself on the natural world. It is irrelevant in any explanatory way, has no causal effect on any event, and is, in essence, meaningless."I would ask you to look back at the premise and notice my opponents use of the term REAL WORLD. He now changes to the 'natural world', so he can claim that nothing is nature is 'super' (supernatural), while the premise states Real world. Meaning anything pertaining to what happens in this world (including human events that involve entertainment and religion... and the storytelling of the two.) My opponent has dropped both of my arguments regarding entertainment and religion. Story-telling is very much a part of what people do, and have done, in the real world, for sources of entertainment. Religion has been based around numerous cultures. The fact that "Under God" is in the US Pledge of Allegiance, shows that our country was founded upon religious men, and those religious views were used in shaping the laws and mannerisms of our country. Thus showing its impact in society, along with any other forms of the supernatural used in entertainment.
The term 'supernatural' is meaningless in the real world.

The idea of the supernatural is based upon ignorance of the way the natural world functioned. Primitives had no clue that lightning was a result of static electricity build up or that earthquakes were the result of tectonic plates pressing together. Because it was how those primitive and unknowing peoples' way of explaining the unexplainable does not justify it now. We, with very few exceptions, are not them. Clinging to those concepts is the act of a child unwilling to let go of his security blanket. We, with very few exceptions, are not them. As you mentioned, the supernatural is a huge source of entertainment. I cannot disagree but you miss the thrust of my argument. The supernatural has no real meaning in the real world. You have already conceded that there is no proof of any supernatural being or event, thus conceding that my statement is correct. While I have tried to steer clear of religion, it falls into the same category. Almost without exception, religions have a supernatural basis with no proof of any of the purported events. They depend upon unquestioning faith and claim proof is unnecessary. Once again, you have conceded that there is no proof of the supernatural so they too are irrelevant in the natural world. No amount of prayer will so much as move a pebble, let alone a mountain. In summary, the supernatural is important to entertainment and religion as a basis for a story but it has no effect in and of itself on the natural world. It is irrelevant in any explanatory way, has no causal effect on any event, and is, in essence, meaningless.