BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
With Anarchy there would be no war

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. " People fought each other even long before the first civilizations began, and there is likely gonna be alot more bloodshed if people can run around freely with their own rules. What you're saying is that 99% of the population, or about 6.9 billion, have pure intentions and are peaceful then we would be living in a utopia years ago. Also, anarchy is impossible, and people who claim it isn't, just don't know how the world works. Why? I'll explain. First, we need to talk about removing the current government. The leaders are obviously not goning to step down, so what's the other option? Revolution? Well good luck with that. The military and politicians aren't going to help you, so it will be up to the civilians which is not feasible because most countries in the world ban guns and other weapons, and even in places like the US your revolver ain't gonna do much agissant the entire army. Fine, let's say a miracle happens and anarchy becomes a reality, so what's next? People will form their own communities/tribes and having their own leaders is likely. They begin to fight each other for basic resources. The leaders of the tribes and communites will take absolute power and enforce laws to stop crimes. There we go we are back at where we started but the progress of the human species will be held back because of the return of monarchs and dictators. Before I end this I just wanted to say that war is not allways bad. For example, if it weren't for WWII The Great Depression would have lasted alot longer without the rise of production.
Obelisk would defeat Slifer in a battle

Well, let's begin! > Power I think we already agreed that Slifer is on 50000/50000. Reckless Greed and Pot of Greed lets Slifer gain 4000/4000 more ATK and DEF. Obelisk the Tormentor, the original one, http://yugioh.wikia.com... , cannot be used in a duel. This ultimately states that since Slifer and Obelisk cannot be used in duels, there is no guaranteed that Obelisk can destroy Slifer. If my opponent states that he uses the "legal" Obelisk the Tormentor and that Slifer is illegal in a duel, I will state that there is now a legal Slifer. Soul Energy Max cannot be used on the "original" Obelisk the Tormentor, thus meaning that Obelisk is now destroyed by Slifer, since Slifer is 50000/50000 and Obelisk is 4000/4000. In the beginning of the debate, I did not state which Obelisk I was referring to, so I will argue that the "original" Obelisk cannot defeat Slifer. This marks that I ultimately win this debate. However, let me go on refuting the points about the "legal" Obelisk the Tormentor. Anti- Meta decks can be used to prevent the opponent's special summoning. The source is: http://yugioh.wikia.com... . I meant that if Slifer is summoned before Obelisk, they are basically both destroyed. This means that Obelisk cannot defeat Slifer in a battle. > Summoning and Battles Let's all remember that Yami Yugi basically played the games. He influenced Yugi Muto to draw cards, play them, or set cards. Therefore, Yami is basically dueling, while Yugi is just his body or something. About the Slifer an Obelisk falling, this means that Slifer and Obelisk are equal. I guess it's true that you could predict Slifer's attacks. Let's not forget that Seto Kaiba was actually a pretty good duelist. He won Obelisk the Tormentor, and that's pretty good, right? You did state that Obelisk defeated Slifer and that Slifer managed to destroy Obelisk, but this proves that Obelisk and Slifer are equal. ==> Conclusion As you can see, Slifer can easily destroy Obelisk the Tormentor (original) and possibly Obelisk the Tormentor (legal). I have proved why Obelisk is equal to Slifer, and how Slifer can destroy Obelisk. I, honestly, like Obelisk the Tormentor (original) because Obelisk looked all tough and had a high ATK and DEF compared to my other cards. However, this does not prove that Obelisk would destroy Slifer. Finally, I would like to give thanks to the readers and especially Mongeese. I would like to debate you in the future. I urge a Con vote and wish you guys, "Happy Holidays!"
Obelisk would defeat Slifer in a battle

1. Power Let's see. .. You state that Obelisk would very much destroy Slifer with the Monster Reborn, Card Destruction, and more. It is very much true, but you could always use "Reckless Greed" which counters your attack and increases attack. You could also use cards that negate any special summons made by opponents. This makes your Obelisk not appear on the field and that it gives Slifer a turn to destroy Mongeese's life points(let's call us yugioh players). . http://wiki.answers.com... . http://yugioh.wikia.com... 2. Battles and Summonings I do not exactly concede to the point, and I will use it to do a counter argument. However, let's move on to summoning: Obelisk destroying Slifer in the battle. I know that Yugi is an experienced dueler and wins a lot of his battles, but sometimes he does not know how to use some cards. This goes with Seto Kaiba. In the battle with Seto Kaiba vs. Ishizu Ishtar, Ishizu Ishtar summons "Blast Held by a Tribute" which means that if Obelisk attacks, it self-destructs. Slifer has less disadvantages than Obelisk's disadvantages. Yami Yugi vs. Seto Kaiba. It states that the two god cards: Slifer the Sky Dragon and Obelisk the Tormentor was evenly matched. They were both destroyed by each other. To refute about the tie, read the second source below. . http://yugioh.wikia.com... . http://forums.narutofan.com... I await my opponent's response and wish him good luck.
Obelisk would defeat Slifer in a battle

I give thanks to mongeese and the readers. 1. Power This means that Obelisk needs to sacrifice 5 cards in order to win. This means that you must sacrifice 3 cards in order to summon Obelisk on the field. After the turn, he only needs 2 cards to win. However, before he gets the chance for sacrificing 2 cards on his next turn, Slifer destroys him. http://yugioh.wikia.com... 2. Battles Okay. I guess it's not evidence. 3. Summoning Obelisk cannot destroy Slifer, because they are somewhat equal. In the pyramid example, The Winged Dragon of Ra is on the top, while Obelisk and Slifer are on the base. My opponent has stated about sacrificing 2 cards to beat Slifer. Slifer can sacrifice 2 cards to tie with Obelisk, or sacrifice 3 cards to destroy Obelisk. Slifer can gain infinite attack. It all depends on who places the card down first. http://yugioh.wikia.com...
Obelisk would defeat Slifer in a battle

1. Refutes True, but, when Obelisk is summoned on the field, it automatically loses 2000 points. Slifer can also destroy any face up cards, so it can defeat Obelisk very easily. Slifer is also not effected by effects of other monsters. This means that Slifer could destroy Obelisk. . http://yugioh.wikia.com... 2. Yugioh battles Yugi Muto destroyed Seto Kaiba. Yugi had a Slifer, while Seto had a Obelisk. Slifer destroyed Obelisk. . http://yugioh.wikia.com... Thank you.
Obelisk would defeat Slifer in a battle

My opponent is correct in that Slifer can reach upwards of 50000 ATK in a duel; in fact, its ATK is only limited by the number of cards the duelist can cram into his deck, thanks to the card Infinite Hand. However, this only works if a duelist can get 50 cards into his hand, which is a tremendous hassle involving one of the most complex card combinations in all of Duel Monsters. Eventually, the duelist will deck out, as Yugi forced the Mime to do in his final turn [1]. Obelisk, however, only requires two monsters to sacrifice in order to use Soul Energy Max and gain literally infinite ATK [2], which is higher than an ATK limited by the number of cards in one's hand. The two monsters I choose to sacrifice are the Dark Magician and Buster Blader. In this fight, after achieving Soul Energy Max, Obelisk would utterly destroy Slifer with a single Fist of Fury, winning both the battle and the Duel. Good luck, ethopia. 1. . http://yugioh.wikia.com... 2. . http://yugioh.wikia.com...
Obelisk would defeat Slifer in a battle

Okay. You wanted this debate, so, let's begin! I hope that is would be better than the one before. 1. Power Slifer can gain 50000/50000, according to your comment. I thought it was only 9000/9000. Hmm. .. This will ultimately defeat Obelisk, whose power is only 4000/4000. . http://yugioh.wikia.com...
If Abortion = Murder, then Masturbation = Genocide and B***jobs = Cannibalism

Alrighty then, lets get to work. Claim #1) Killing a 2 month old baby is murder, even if the 2 month old baby really deserved it. I think the con would agree with that claim Claim #2) A 2 month old baby is just about the same as a baby thats been in the womb for 8 months minus the fact that the fetus is still in the womb, so killing an 8 month old fetus still in the womb is murder. I think con would agree with this claim as well since hes against late term abortion (according to his profile) Claim #3) An 8 month old baby in the womb is considered alive and human since it consists of human dna, human cells, develops in the womb into a human, yatta yatta yatta. Look there isnt really a clear and universal definition of why or when exactly a fetus is considered human and alive. Claim #4) In order to make a baby, you need sperm, an egg, a good amount of alcohol, and poor self control. Claim #5) Sperm cells consist of human dna, they are human cells, they develop in the womb into a human when combined with an egg. Claim #6) By claim 5, Sperm cells are human. Claim #7) If Sperm Cells are human, then masturbation kills millions of humans and is therefore genocide, while eating millions of humans is considered cannibalism.
If Abortion = Murder, then Masturbation = Genocide and B***jobs = Cannibalism

" When thought in this manner, not all things human should be given rights. Does a single cell deserve the same rights of a person? Of course not."Well thats just your opinion now isnt it? Corporations and businesses are given human rights sine they are classified as people, and if businesses are considered people/human then I think that human cells should also be considered people/human since apparently the bar to be classified as a person s pretty low. "A person, as defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary, is one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties. So at one point does a growing human become a person? In my opinion, the best determiner in when someone becomes a living person is brain activity."Aha, another opinion!A person is one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties, and fetuses at all stages are the subject of rights and duties in numerous states. and we're talking about whether or not sperm and eggs are human, not just people. "If brain death is the determiner of when someone is dead, why not be the determiner of when someone is alive?"Because being brain dead doesnt necessarily imply that someone is dead, there are brain dead pundits on fox news/msnbc (whichever one you hate more) all the time, and they are still considered to be alive!===========================================================================I know people get touchy on the subject but the simple truth is that sperm and eggs do have rights since they are a lot like people..... No brains, no balls, but still human and still alive. They certainly meet some of the most basic criteria to be considered people/human, which means that aborting them is indeed murder, that masturbating is indeed genocide, and that b*** jobs are indeed cannibalism.
If Abortion = Murder, then Masturbation = Genocide and B***jobs = Cannibalism

"Claim #1) Killing a 2 month old baby is murder, even if the 2 month old baby really deserved it. I think the con would agree with that claim" I agree "Claim #2) A 2 month old baby is just about the same as a baby thats been in the womb for 8 months minus the fact that the fetus is still in the womb, so killing an 8 month old fetus still in the womb is murder. I think con would agree with this claim as well since hes against late term abortion (according to his profile)" I agree "Claim #3) An 8 month old baby in the womb is considered alive and human since it consists of human dna, human cells, develops in the womb into a human, yatta yatta yatta. Look there isnt really a clear and universal definition of why or when exactly a fetus is considered human and alive." First, there such be a differentiation between the meaning of human and person. Human is a much broader term. Individual cells, DNA, and our interactions with other people could all be considered human. When thought in this manner, not all things human should be given rights. Does a single cell deserve the same rights of a person? Of course not. That brings me to what a person is. A person, as defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary, is one that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties. So at one point does a growing human become a person? In my opinion, the best determiner in when someone becomes a living person is brain activity. Today, a person is considered legally dead when that person becomes brain dead. This means that if a human body is still on life support, and there is no brain activity, then the family of that individual could decide to take that person off of life support, effectively ending that body's ability to function. If brain death is the determiner of when someone is dead, why not be the determiner of when someone is alive? When we consider a person alive at the moment of brain activity, then a fetus becomes a person at a certain point, as brain activity occurs during a certain point of the pregnancy. In this view of abortion, it is wrong to kill a fetus, but it is okay to masturbate or get blowjobs. One would be murder, and the others aren't. Back to you.
Republican Chicks Are Hotter

Rather than attempt to argue that Democrat women are in any way more attractive, sexually, romantically, or otherwise, I would rather argue against the resolution today in general as there is no objective way to come to a conclusion in this debate. (1) For one thing, he's using his own standard of beauty in order to determine the attractiveness of the examples he put in his argument, a standard that might not correspond to other people and henceforth, is inherently subjective. There are people who don't find Ann Coulter particularly attractive. I don't find Ann Coulter particularly attractive. There are people who have commented that she resembles a man to them. [1] I personally find Angelina Jolie very attractive, for example, but there are some who don't agree. However, my standard of beauty won't be entirely the same as another person's, and neither will theirs. The existence of a single person who doesn't find these women attractive shows that people's modes for attractiveness can vary, and the lack of a universal standard of attractiveness makes it impossible to objectively determine that any woman, Republican or otherwise, is beautiful to everyone. One could try to see how many standards of beauty a woman's attractiveness fits and estimate a majority, but my opponent neither looks up polls in order to see how many people find Republican women more attractive than Democrat or realizes that even a single disagreement that Republican women are more attractive proves there is no universal standard. Also a majority of people finding a particular subgroup of women attractive will not automatically change the minds of the people that don't find them attractive, so to say that these women are attractive in absolutes would be an inaccurate statement. (2) For another thing, he's also generalizing the idea that people will find all Republican women attractive and provides only a few examples in order to back up this claim. Maggie Gallagher, a former president and chairman for the National Organization of Marriage, is known to be staunch social conservative and a supporter of the Republican Party, and the general description that people have of her is that she is overweight and unattractive. [2] Yes, many people find Gallagher unattractive, but that is only in the eyes of the beholders who see her. Please refer to point 1 for further information. So ultimately, the way that the argument concludes is that the resolution cannot be resolved upon, and any arguments that try to prove the attractiveness of either Republican or Democrat women will inherently inaccurate and void. Henceforth, I should be the winner of this debate. [1] http://www.datalounge.com...[2] http://www.datalounge.com...
Foie Gras Shouldn't be Banned

I would first like to point out that my opponent is wrong in saying "Foie Gras is known for decadent buttery taste and smooth texture. I has a flavor that can't be found in any other food in the world." one can get smooth texture and buttery taste by visiting an italian restaurant and ordering pasta WO sauce and W butter. secondly the diagram of the foul's throat is accurate but that does not necessarily mean its harmless to the animal. Think about it, how would you, an intelligent being, like to be raised in a pen with 50 other humans, have fattening food shoved down your throat and then shocked before being decapitated. the shocking finale is adding insult to injury. if you can tell me you would go through all this without resistance, then you are ether ignorant of your own psyche or a deranged madman/ woman. im going to lose this debate due to conduct but let it be known that the killing of animals for food is unjust and a foolish sin of our race that will damn us all to hell!!!
Foie Gras Shouldn't be Banned

Jolly good! I firmly believe the sales and production of foie gras should continue in the US, for the following reasons: 1: Delicious: Foie Gras is known for decadent buttery taste and smooth texture. I has a flavor that can't be found in any other food in the world. 2: Not Inhumane: Contrary to popular belief, the raising of Mulards and geese for foie gras is very clean, safe, and ethical. Modern day foie gras has the fowl in huge pens for them to waddle around in first stages of life, and comfortable pen in the gavage stage. Even a few farms have moved on from the metal tubes to rubber ones. Finally, they stun the birds with electrified water before slaughter so they feel no pain or fear. 3: Anatomy: People often think that having a tube go down their throat would be painful and terrifying. That's true for a human. Our esophagus serves as both an airway passage for our lungs and a tube for our stomachs. The epiglottis makes us gag when something too big travels down throat. Ducks and geese don't work like that. They have separate tubes for ingestion and breathing. Their trachea actually extends into the tongue! Which means the could have a large foreign intruder in their esophagus and be perfectly fine. I await my opponents side. Sources: http://www.seriouseats.com... http://culinarypromiscuity.com... Sorry if the websites look biased. Oddly enough, I could only find the neck anatomy on those sites, go figure.
Foie Gras Shouldn't be Banned

Foie Gras is a legendary French Cuisine; Engorged goose/duck liver, sauteed and served either alone or with filet mignon. It's an ancient practice, dating back to 2500 BC, where Egyptians force fed birds to fatten them. That's the controversy in foie gras today. Gavage is a method were a long metal tube is forced down the water fowl's throat to achieve the desired level of liver engorgement. California banned the production and sale of Foie Gras in 2012. Chicago banned it in 2005 but overturned the ruling in 2008. Peta, Viva!, and the Animal Humane Society want the ban nation wide. Round 1 is accepting the debate. Round 2 we give our reasons. Round 3 we try to deflate each others arguments. Round 4 closing statements.
"Holocaust" ought not be used to refer to the mass murder by the Nazi's

I affirm that there is no good reason to change the name of the holocaust. Pro has given no solid reasons to show how the term is offensive. If there was a great uproar, backlash, or other type of civil or social upheaval about the word then there would be more of a case. Saying "the word holocaust is offensive" just because you feel like it is is not the basis of a cogent argument. I have shown that... A. Holocaust is used properly when referring to the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis. B. There is no great backlash against the word. C. It is widely accepted and has been for decades. I am siding with the status quo, yes. I am defending the vernacular as Pro says because Pro has given no good reason to change what is already accepted. I am challenging the claim that holocaust is a sacred and holy word, it's not anymore. It's been used in the vernacular and has been commonplace for use of this kind of event for centuries. Pro is incensed about the use of the word but doesn't seem to have a good reason to be. One angry person does not give grounds to change a widely, worldwide, use of a word. Pro also says that I both made fallacious arguments and that I made no arguments at all. Which is it? His debate was inconsistent and not compelling. He had the burden of proof to show that the word Holocaust ought not be used. I have defended the fact that it fits, it's accepted, not offensive and should stay the way it is. Pro has given no compelling reason to change the status quo. Besides saying that he feels like the word is sacred and offensive, which it doesn't seem to be, he has given no other good reason to change the vernacular and the status quo.