BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
For light, black isn't a color

I understand your concept... but I see no need for a debate. I'm simply stating the fact that... White, black, gray, and pink are not colors. They do not exist in the color spectrum of light. Colors are as you said (Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet). The combination of all colors are seen as white. White is not a color because it cannot exist on its own. Black is not a color because it's the absent of colors. Not white light. Pink is not a color because it does not exist in the light spectrum. As mentioned before, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet make up the color spectrum of light. Pink is made by adding white to red. Just as gray is not in the color spectrum of light. It's created by adding white to black. Brown also can be considered a non-color.
For light, black isn't a color

Rules1. No plagiarism; You aren't authorized to copy someone else's work and claim it as your own. If source(s) is/are cited, it doesn't count as plagiarism.2. Please be serious in this debate.Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture.PresentationI don't even need a picture. White is composed of some colors (This has been experimented. We have a prism. We direct white light towards its tip on the top. Because the bottom's fat, the white light is dispersed into its component colors (Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet) and is refracted[1]), but definitely not black. Say, I'm in a room. I'll establish this scenery. You can visually prove this yourself. If I turn on the lights, not only is the room illuminated, but some objects, depending on their molecular structure, reflect a certain color/certain colors (If the color requires a combination of colors), while absorbing others. However, if turned off, all are black. If white was also composed of black, then the room wouldn't be black when turned off.Source[1] The videohttp://www.youtube.com...
America can get conquered

Thank you for accepting. There are at least four main reasons I feel the United States is to much for any one nation or even a group of nations to conquer. Location. The United States is very, very far from other major powers in the world. A successful invasion into the United States will require vast amount of resources and manpower to travel across the oceans, that right now no nation on the planet has in proper equivalents to successfully make that adventure. American technology and war machine. The United States' top tier technology would easily spot an invasion force of such size coming and America's armed forces would stop that invasion force from reaching American soil. As it stands right now, the US navy is larger then any one nation's navy easily. It is even larger than multiple major powers combined. So with America's location in the world and their military strength it would make any invaders efforts hopeless to compete and defeat the American navy and sustain their supply lines from such distances. Size. As the reason Russia is so difficult to conquer, so is the United States. Many of the world's major powers is equivalent in size to US states. Even to the nations that are larger, America's size is simply to large to conquer when adding the previous and following reasons for an unconquerable United States. Population and guns. Like size, the United States just has to many people. In 2011, it was reported that gun owners outnumbered hunters by 5 to 1, and there were estimated that there is 13.7 million hunters in the United States. That is larger than any standing army in the world. There is an additional 70-80 million more gun owners. Then there is the militarized police force of 865,000. Allies and nuclear weapons. The United States has a vast amount of allies both big and small powers and a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons in their nuclear triad. These two reasons can be excluded for sake of debate. http://cnsnews.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
America can get conquered

There is little hard evidence to sustain either supposition but there are always vulnerabilities to consider and the story of every nation must suffer some manner of denouement. Certainly, history shows that a belief in one"s own invulnerability is a fatal hubris sufficient enough to provoke collapse. Confidence must be tempered with vigilance; a nation alert to potential threat is better prepared to survive the unexpected. I look forward to Con"s arguments supporting the notion of an unconquerable United States.
America can get conquered

I believe the United States can't get conquered. Being that I have read a few debates, definitions seem important cause a few people will literally win a debate by providing their own definitions and thoughts that was not considered before creating the debate. United States = North American country bordering Mexico and Canada. Can't = Not having the ability to do something. Conquer = to take control of (a country, city, etc.) through the use of force The person that accepts will argue that the United States can get conquered. No alien invaders, I'm talking about other powers residing on Earth. Round one is for acceptance.
Animal Rights

Rebuttal: "Thus, I conclude with the fact that animals deserve equal respect, welfare and rights ..." I said equal rights, not same rights. By animal rights, I mean the fact that animals should not be treated as property. The clear definition for animal rights has been given in the same debate. And animals deserve equal respect to humans. By animal, I mean sentient species in the kingdom Animalia: "multicellar, eukaryotic organisms that ingest other organisms for sustenance, of the kingdom Animalia" are animals, and any sentient species that follow this description, I consider animals. Generally, these organisms respond rapidly to stimuli, and that sentience is what I refer to. I said "same respect", and "equal rights". Therefore, this argument is not valid.
Animal Rights

Animals are an important portion to the world's evolution. Why do animals deserve to be treated equally to humans? Many years ago, humans created the concept of ethics, where an advanced psychological being, the human, treats another with emotions and psychological environmental-fostering such as compassion. By these ethics, murder and torture, for example, are considered crimes, as is cannibalism. While one could argue that it is biologically necessary for humans to help each other for the survival of the human species, ethics was, in fact, made as the framework of civilization and society for humanity. So, humans gave rights and welfare great importance. Yet, why are animals not given the same respect? As the legendary Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Why do other non-human species deserve such equal respect? 1. Animals can feel emotions and physical impulses. They feel pain, et cetera. 2. By the basic human concept of ethics, they do not deserve any direct infliction of pain by humans, bound to follow these ethics by society. 3. Humans have caused great harm and destruction to the Earth, while animals have merely helped the ecosystem balance. 4. Animals cannot commit "crimes". What an animal does is morally justifiable as animals have a varied notion of "ethics", and do not have the psychological complexity to understand these ethical propositions. Therefore, animals have not committed crimes, and do not deserve infliction of pain. Research on dogs and arthropods at the University of Lincoln showed that these animals react to stimuli by a nervous charge pattern similar to that of humans while experiencing emotions, proving that animals are capable of emotions. Thus, I conclude with the fact that animals deserve equal respect, welfare and rights, and do not deserve to be treated in cruel conditions of factory farming, slaughterhouses and laboratories that practice animal testing. Sources - en.wikipedia.org, peta.org, en.wikispecies.org, www.thetimes.co.uk, www.nytimes.org
Animal Rights

This is the Animal Rights debate. It lasts 3 hours per round, with 3 rounds. Each argument can have a maximum of 10,000 characters. The topic is animal rights, which I strongly support. Animal rights is hereby defined as: the idea that all non-human sentient animals are entitled to the possession of their own lives, and deserve proper welfare. In this debate's definitions (though the definition might be slightly inaccurate), animal rights is inclusive of animal welfare, and therefore animal rights vs animal welfare arguments are invalid. Round 1 is for acceptance only, and no arguments. Round 2 is the presentation of arguments. Round 3 is the rebuttal and conclusion arguments.
Suffering and Mercy Start at Conception.....One or the other will be forever.

Pro's Impossible Stance: Pro has affirmed the resolution here and in the process has given himself an impossible burden of proof. Firstly he must give prove that an embryo is even capable of experiencing suffering or being given mercy. He must then prove that mercy and suffering start for every embryo at the moment of conception. Secondly he must prove that individuals will experience suffering or mercy for forever. He must prove that an afterlife (one which gives us mercy or suffering) exists to accomplish this and since this is not possible, it is impossible for Pro to prove the resolutions and fulfill his BoP. Pro must prove both resolutions to win this debate. Definitions Suffering- The state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship Distress- Extreme anxiety, sorrow, or pain Hardship- Severe suffering or privation Mercy- Compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one’s power to punish or harm Forever- For all future time; for always Oxford Dictionaries Resolution 1: Suffering and Mercy Start at Conception P1: For suffering and mercy to always start at conception all embryos must be capable of experiencing suffering and being granted mercy at the instant of conception. P2: All embryos are not capable of experiencing suffering and mercy at conception at conception. Conclusion: Not all embryos experience suffering and mercy at the moment of conception. A defense of P2: Pain is only possible at 20 weeks at the earliest and there is no evidence that pain is possible at conception. Neither the sperm or the egg initially have pain receptors so this is absurd. (http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com...) Distress includes anxiety, sorrow, or pain. Emotional development does not occur at the instant of conception so embryos do not face distress. As for hardship, privation means scarce access to resources needed to survive and since the majority of embryos don't experience that the point is negated. Mercy is a little easier. Because at the instant of conception very few embryos are capable of being punished or harmed, the resolution is false. Also note that mercy and suffering are contradictory and all embryos cannot experience them at the same time. Pro needs to provide serious proof to support his assertion here. Resolution 2: To prove this assertion Pro must provide empirical evidence, so proof, that all individuals will experience suffering or mercy forever. To show this pro has the impossible task of proving the existence of an afterlife. Since there is no evidence supporting such a claim there is no reason to believe it. Conclusion: This debate was over from the beginning, Pro gave himself an impossible resolution to prove. There is no empirical evidence to prove any of his claims. A smart debater who didn't believe in wasting time could have not put in any arguments and simply let pro's burden go unfulfilled and would have easily won.
Suffering and Mercy Start at Conception.....One or the other will be forever.

This is about the problem of pain caused by man's evil toward his fellow man, or the pain and suffering caused by disease, or the pain of losing a loved one. Why does God allow suffering? It is because He is being merciful. He is giving us time to be saved from eternal suffering, He wants us to know eternal mercy. The two cannot go together forever.....for now we have suffering and we have time because God has not dealt with us according to what we deserve, but according to His mercy. Because He is just and righteous, He must execute punishment of death against all of His creatures who broke His law. He does not want to finalize our execution, He wants us to find His mercy forever. Time is runniong out......suffering and mercy will not go together forever. Suffering will end or mercy will end. Suffering will go on forever or mercy will relieve suffering forever. We have to go on under mercy or under suffering, but they cannot go together forever because it grieves God to watch the suffering. Please post your first argument when you accetp this debate challenge.
Peanut Butter goes well on pancakes.

This is a serious topic. Don't make a joke about this topic. Got it... OK So if your saying peanut butter goes on pancakes your stupid. Peanut butter is meant for BREAD. Only an obese child would want a 2000 calorie pancake. American citizens are already fat this does not help. Instead, a normal person would put just BUTTER on a pancake AND SYRUP... NOT PEANUT BUTTER you freaking 6-year-old boy. Seriously do you have anything better to do with your life? Get a freaking job or something. <3
Mortal Kombat is better than Street Fighter

There is but one point I'd like to argue in that rebuttal: Con argues that unpredictability is best when it comes to playing fighter games like street fighter or mortal kombat. I don't know about most of the players out there, but I for one like to be able to read my opponent and decide my next move all within that 3 second gap. I can only do that if I know who I'm facing and what I can use to counter every move they have. This is only possible if you can easily memorize every move that the opponent has up their sleeve. For technical players, I'd say Mortal Kombat is the optimal choice, for the "button mashers", well, let's just say I have yet to beat my little sister in Street Fighter II all because of her random-button-mashing strategy. For my last bit of text I'm using, I'd like to look a the big picture for a sec, instead of nit-picking at the smaller aspects. Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter: two iconic fighting franchises that have been fighting since the early nineties for public supremacy. They both really are the same in many aspects, (techniques, layout, etc.) and have equally divided fan bases that are extremely dedicated. Among all the spammers and button mashers, there are a select few that play these games for extreme competition, and I believe that's what is setting this debate in motion. We've been talking non-stop about "technical" aspects like originality and how easy it is to pull off a combo, but I don't believe we've covered how FUN each game is. Part of the fun tone of fighting games is multi-player. I'd personally prefer playing with friends rather than by myself when it comes to fighting games, and an underlying tone of friendship when it comes to friendly competition is beating them as hard as you possibly can and then rubbing it in their faces. Now I'm gonna quote Mr. Con here, "Fatalities are, again, just unnecessary." Yes, they ARE unnecessary. But why then do the programmers implement such "unnecessary" things? Well, why did Halo players start the tradition of "tea-bagging"? Why do fighting games like Super Smash Bros have a "taunt" option? In the end, Mortal Kombat's programmers did something no fighting game has been able to replicate since: a taunt performed simultaneously with your final attack! It may be a small detail, but I guarantee that your friends will literally sit there in utter-blood-spattered awe as you do something that shows just how victorious you are. That's the charm and controversy that Mortal Kombat will be immortal for. The Pro-secution rests. It's up to the voters now.
Mortal Kombat is better than Street Fighter

Okay, I concede that both games are equally matched when compared in terms of combo complexity. To gather some stats, Mortal Kombat has included a total of 68 different characters in all of their games, while Street Fighter has around 98 different characters included in all installments. The original Street fighter was released 1987, while the original Mortal Kombat was released 1992. There's obviously a bit of a gap in the similarities in the numbers, there being a 5 year gap between the first installments and a 30 character gap. I, for one, argue that the smaller amount of characters help narrow down your opponent's strategy. With a wider variety of characters, comes the possibility of unpredictability. If there is a lesser amount of characters, there's an easier way to memorize combos and ways to deflect them. When it comes to originality in moves, I really have to give it to Mortal Kombat. Street Fighter is very "real-world" integrated, which is pretty cool, but Mortal Kombat is set in a supernatural setting, leaving more possibilities for interesting moves. Any old fighter can throw punches and kicks, but a Mortal Kombat fighter can throw a kunai and chain out of their arm, or attack using their razor sharp hat, to name a very select few. Sure there are supernatural fighters in Street Fighter, with Ryu's hadokens and Rose the psychic, but the variety just isn't as wide in that respect. That's all. I'll admit, I'm running out of ammo here.
Mortal Kombat is better than Street Fighter

(How did I forget Guile?) Ok, guess we are bringing neuroscience into this? The dopamine pathway regulates your "happy feeling" and they stop giving you a happy feeling after doing it over and over again. This is what we call the "happiness equilibrium", this is when your brain gets used to the level of happiness and therefore turns off the happy feeling when reaching that level. Remember, Street Fighter combos are also hard to pull off. The easy combos (ex: Ryu's Medium kick, Hadoken) are usually used very frequently and just to poke the opponent or chip of their health. The hard combos that deal massive damage are incredibly difficult to pull off, even with practice. Plus, it's very hard to hit the opponent with it. You have to put your opponent into a specific situation, and then execute it. Hard, right? So when you do it you feel great because you can't do it very often. I think Street Fighter has more variety than Mortal Kombat. First, every installment in the series added something new. Street Fighter 1: Started the series, introduced Ryu, Ken, Sagat, and Gen Street Fighter 2: Established the fundamentals of Street Fighter and the original characters Street Fighter Alpha: Established the story and lots of new characters Street Fighter 3: Added Super combos, parrying/air blocking/tech blocking, air juggling and added some new characters Street Fighter 4: Added Ultra Combos, Focus Attacks, Focus Cancels. Some new characters Unlike Mortal Kombat, which every installment is basically the same except different fatalities and some new characters. Plus, most Street Fighter character plays differently. Fatalities, again, are just unnecessary.
Mortal Kombat is better than Street Fighter

(I'm surprised you never mentioned Guile's theme in the music segment of your rebuttal. After all, it goes with everything!) When you ask "Is Mortal Kombat better than Street Fighter", I'm analyzing the franchise as a whole, though the games are definitely the biggest part of the franchises and have the highest priority in this argument. I'd like to point out that the combos that are so difficult to execute in Mortal Kombat are not only personally more pleasing when pulled off, but scientifically proven to be more pleasing (albeit indirectly proven). In our brains, there's something called "the Dopamine Pathway". Dopamine are tiny molecules that cause excitement when something good happens. I'm not gonna get into the nitty gritty of brain biology, the gist of it is that dopamine can turn themselves off over time in a procedure called "desensitization". Basically it makes that happy feeling of landing a nice ultra combo grow older every time you use it. Stopping this takes a nice amount of regulation, and what better way to regulate the player's dopamine intake than to make a task brutally difficult to perform, and if you're the strategic type like me, chances are you won't try to land a combo unless you see a perfect moment in which to do so. Hence, this is why Mortal Kombat combos are more pleasing to yourself and more devastating to the opponent. Also, in regard to that part about "performing under pressure", pressure can only be exerted if the opponent is kicking your butt at the game, and that could only mean that the opponent has trained really hard (or you are very bad at the game. It all depends on who you are as a player and how the opponent is as a player). To add, characters come in a wide variety in both franchises. I commend Street Fighter for bringing a national aspect into their franchise, but I commend Mortal Kombat even more on the continuously finding more creative ways to dispatch a foe. From Scorpion's signature "Skull Fire" fatality move to Sub-Zero's "Spine-Ripper", there's an endless amount of ways to beat an opponent and rub it in their faces. ... .... ...... "Toasty!" (Sorry, I couldn't resist)
Mortal Kombat is better than Street Fighter

I'm going to rebut my opponents arguments My opponent states that mortal Kombat's gameplay is better because the combos are better and more satisfactory. But tell me, how do you have fun with these combos if you can only execute it rarely. In Street Fighter, the combos are challenging, but you can execute them under pressure. Imagine how fun it would be if you of an amazing combo, and then successfully pull if a medium shoryuken, focus cancel, straight into a ultra combo. It is so satisfactory! Instead of little combos with high damaging attacks. Or big, epic combos with low damage attacks, but you hit them more! Plus, ultra combos and super combos quite a bit of practice to use, you just don't use one button. It's a series of button presses and joystick movement. What makes it harder is that they are easily blocked and avoided. You need to fit it into a COMBO, which is already hard. Unlike mortal Kombat's easy to land x-Ray moves and fatalities. It's so much more rewarding to land an ultra combo. Plus, those fatalities are totally unnecessary and takes the focus away from gameplay. Street Fighter music is awesome. Capcom did a great job with the music, it has high paced, fight music on every stage, and the music matches the stage well. But one of my favorite music are the character themes. Each character in Street Fighter have their own theme, and the theme fits. Find some YouTube videos of them, the themes are awesome and fit the character really well. From Ryu's fast paced fight music, to Vega's Spanish dance music. As for movies, yeah. I don't think the movies are relevant. We are debating about the video games, right?