BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Brad Stine as a Comedian

I can't refute empirical data, but I can refute the conclusions made from them. The Sun may rise in the West and set in the East, but that doesn't mean that the Sun circles the Earth as many have concluded in the past. Comedians often make fun of caricatures in order to be funny. Gabriel Iglesias makes comedy with Mexican stereotypes. Bill Burr makes remarks that can be deemed sexist out of context. George Carlin swears and can be considered rude or obnoxious. If my opponent's measures are anything to go by, then there's no such thing as a good comedian, which just shows how ridiculous my opponent's methods of measuring comedians are. Comedy is nothing without measuring delivery, flow, speech, rhythm, etc. My opponent quotes from Stine's routines out of context without regard to these important elements. Since these quotes ignore many key elements, my opponent's quotes are inadequate in proving whether or not Stine is a good comedian. Again, being a good comedian does not in any way entail satisfying expectations of social justice. A good comedian satisfies audiences with humor. Being funny is the only thing that matters, and my opponent verifies as much near the end of his round: "Being a Good Comedian implies one is Actually funny." Since my opponent didn't negate my standard of measurement, it is considered dropped. Since funny is the only thing that actually matters, rudeness (opinion), obnoxiousness(opinion), socially unequal dialogue (debatable) etc. Every single one of my opponent's contentions are negated. Neither does my opponent address my argument which is that Comedian's goodness are measured by their success. If a comedian is good, then the comedian will have enough of an audience to sustain his career. Stine has that. An audience means that people think Stine is funny, which means Stine is funny. If Stine is funny, then he's a good comedian. Therefore Stine is a good comedian.
Brad Stine as a Comedian

I don't know who Brad Stine is, but a little research tells me that Brad Stine is as good a comedian as any. No part of being a comedian means satisfying people's expectations of social justice and wants, so as long as he is successful, Brad Stine is a good comedian. What it means to be a good comedian is to be able to provide humor and to attract audiences. Bigger audiences and larger numbers of good reviews means a comedian is doing pretty good. Brad Stine has made appearances in many shows, which means these shows thinks he's netting enough ratings to deserve all those appearances. Those ratings means that people thinks he's good. And since good is based on opinion, people thinking he's good automatically makes him good. And since he's still around according to his website BradStine.com, enough people think he's a good comedian to keep his career going. Which means that the people who thinks that he is a bad comedian aren't enough to override the people who thinks he's a good comedian. So that means Brad Stine has more of a net 'good comedian' opinion to his name than 'bad comedian'. The better he is, the more of an audience he gets. Audiences are evidence of his being a good comedian. So that proves that Brad Stine is a good comedian.
Ninjas Vs. Pirates

Corrections:Round 2, chapter listing for that book is at http://en.wikipedia.org...Current round: If the video is embeeded, it's source 3; showing the future of ninjas in a bad light.The heart of this debate hits a basic problem. On sea or land? Either probably wins with home turf advantage. Thus we're mostly arguing for which is overall cooler (see new argument 2 below). Or we're arguing in plurals, to which pirates have a numerical edge but ninjas are sharper (classic question of Quality vs. Quantity).Final new arguments: The future.Both have a proud history, full of killing a lot of other people as often as each other. In the case of pirates this includes American Marines, who at one time were pirates literally trained to kill other pirates. Modern times are debatable, but the modern "ninja" shown by pro is actually Scottish (1)! (meaning not Asian, thus not a real ninja; even if a True Scotsman.)In the future depictions of pirates remain awesome. They'll continue to fight and kill each other, leading to moments like the movie Serenity http://4.bp.blogspot.com... (2)... However the future of Ninjas is Robocop 3 http://dvdmedia.ign.com... (3). Global Warming.If pirates die, the planet heats up. This is pure science, and is even supported by a major world religion (pastafarianism). People think wearing black is cool, but wearing too much (as ninjas do) is a terrible idea in summer. Whereas pirates are so cool they chill the planet. See this scientific study from a .edu website, also reported on at Forbes.com: http://bama.ua.edu... (4). Defense: The Video:A single elite-Ninja was proved to be only slightly tougher than a single pirate. Plus ninjas have an unfortunate addiction to catching bullets in their teeth, which may sound cool, until you consider the increasing cost of dental care as guns improve. No one knows why Ninjas suffer this compulsion, but the practical test for it in their training kills more would be ninjas than every other part of their training combined. During WWII reliance on Ninjas lost the ground war for Japan, when Marines discovered this weakness and exploited it with dishonorable automatic weapons. Exhibits A-C:The coolest most famous Ninja is Raphael from TMNT, but eventually his great speed failed him allowing his true likeness to be captured by camera: http://jimkirchoff.com... (admittedly still cool). Thus clearly neither side reliably photographs all that well. Pirates remain unpredictable:The photographs of the ship and the boat, shows the versatility of pirates. Plus the second was unlikely a live on pirate ship, but a smaller assault craft (they've always had small boats launched by larger ones). My argument stands. Sources(1) http://www.imdb.com...(2) http://www.universalstudiosentertainment.com...(3) Worst villain ever?(4) http://www.forbes.com...
Ninjas Vs. Pirates

Please save watching the video until instructed to do soRebuttals.1. Pirates are by Darwinian nature awesomeYes pirates are rather fit, but in a fight between pirates and ninjas a ninjas skill would prevail. (see case video now) 2. Pirates are manlyI agree most pirates are in fact rather manly. However see argument below1+2. I will also counter your first and second at the same time.See in exhibits A-C below that these pirates are in fact neither manly or fitexhibit A: http://www.partyzonefancydress.co.uk... exhibit B: http://i.ebayimg.com...==/$(KGrHqN,!oUFB0MWZ7NYBQfsng0Um!~~60_35.JPGexhibit C: http://www.thepartymonster.co.uk...3. Pirates are unpredictable True pirates are unpredictable, I doubt any pirates expected going from this:http://www.boatdesign.net...To this:http://www.newbedfordguide.com...While ninjas have gone from this: http://vintageninja.net...To This: http://scrapetv.com...4. Pirates get the plunderNo counter argumentDefense on topics1. Ninjas are steathlyNo rebuttal. so my first argument still stands2. "The only thing a pirate discriminates against, is landlocked people. Had Zeppelins done better, they would not even discriminate against those"3. Parkour "The better you are at parkour, the more likely a single mistake will cripple or kill you." The better you are at pakour the less chance you have at making a mistake. Plus if one of the drunken pirates fell off the ropes, he would go right into the ocean and no one would go back to save him.4. Free time "How is this not pure awesome?".... you are right that does sound like fun
Ninjas Vs. Pirates

Pirates are awesome: Pirates are by Darwinian nature awesome.Not only is it survival of the fittest, as only the fittest get the rum; but they must then remain on top while dealing with the handicap of being drunk. Pirates are manly.In the only book "So manly, even its sentences don't have periods" (1), The Alphabet of Manliness; Pirates are given a whole chapter. Pirates are unpredictable.Pirates are known by many names due to their different specializations, vikings and privateers for example. They can strike anywhere a ship can get near. They may use any type of weapon they can get their hands on. Not only are they numerous, they can also easily replenish their numbers (picking up a mix of random and unexpected skills) so long as there's ship based stealing to be done (in some cases spawning spontaneous regeneration in pirate depleted areas). They may also be connected to lumberjacks, as evidenced by this picture:http://3.bp.blogspot.com... Pirates get the plunder.Not only do they get what they can carry away, they have a whole ship to fill with ill gotten gains. Plus the variety of women they may encounter on the seas. Case in point: Keira Knightly! http://news.deltafilms.net...In case of sexism, certain other types of pirates have beauties like this: http://news.deltafilms.net... Ninjas are not (rebuttals full of fallacies): Ninjas are good at hiding.No counter argument. Ninjas are Asian.Limited to just the Japanese, also known as being racist!The only thing a pirate discriminates against, is landlocked people. Had Zeppelins done better, they would not even discriminate against those. ParkourThe better you are at parkour, the more likely a single mistake will cripple or kill you.However pirates also did crazy climbing around, but sensibly, just look at those masts they hung out on. Much of their day consisted of climbing around on ropes, fishing, and singing; as seen in Southpark (3). Well they were not known to do backflips themselves, I imagine they sometimes made other people do backflips off the plank. Free TimeI second pro's argument on this. "What does a pirate do in his spare time: Kill off innocent people take they're Sh**, rape they're women, and get drunk in the middle of the ocean." How is this not pure awesome? Sources:(1) http://store.theworstpageintheuniverse.com...(2) http://en.wikipedia.org... hate wiki as I suspect it lacks proper anti-ninja countermeasures, but the only source I could find with a clear chapter list.(3) http://www.southparkstudios.com...
Ninjas Vs. Pirates

Ok my first point1. Ninja's are stealthy. .. i mean Really Stealthy look at this picture for example . http://static.fjcdn.com...There are 7 ninjas in this picture alone. I also dobt a pirate would see a ninja if he was standing right in front of him given how drunk the pirate would be2. Ninjas are smart. Most if not all ninjas are asians, and we all know asians are very very smart people. How smart I bet if an asian 10 year old wanted to prove that 2+2 actually was 5 it would be no problem. 3. Parkor Ninjas all do crazy acrobatics like running on walls and doing backflips and sh**. 4. Free time. A ninja spends his free time improving his skills (such as 1-3). what does a pirate do in his spare time: Kill off innocent people take they're Sh**, rape they're women, and get drunk in the middle of the ocean.
Ninjas Vs. Pirates

My case stands.Attempts at contacting pyrotyguy (pro), to attain his closing comments have failed. Due to Occam's Razor (1) there are only two possibilities in existence for why (you know since having two items to compare in it, automatically precludes everything else). He lives in Japan, and was the victim of a Ninja honor killing for exposing their secrets. He does not live in Japan, and decided to fight global warming by becoming a pirate. I hope you all enjoyed this informative serious intellectual debate. Sources:(1) http://scienceblogs.com... hilarious, and contains ninjas!
Pot From A Medical View

My opponent forfeited. "Pot Can be Used In a Medical Way ro Release pain And Frustration. Its Not Harm full Nor addictive only mentally. I Personally Believe Everyone Should Smoke A Joint But Others Disagree With My methods." {1}. [No offense, but Does This Make Your Eyes Bleed? It Hurts My Eyes Too. Also, What Is Ro? Stop Uppercasing Every Word! You Only Do That On Begining Of Sentences Or I Or Names And Places.] S/G: CON. Pro's paragraph is like this: Wor Word Word Arguments: CON Pro's case was weak and is based on plain assertions and baseless claims. Sources: CON. Pro did not provide any. Conduct: PRO due to{1} .
Pot From A Medical View

"Pot Can be Used In a Medical Way ro Release pain And Frustration. Its Not Harm full Nor addictive only mentally. I Personally Believe Everyone Should Smoke A Joint But Others Disagree With My methods." Since my opponent did not define "pot", I will define it for him. Cannabis, also known as marijuana, a preparation of the Cannabis plant intended for use as a psychoactive drug and as medicine. [1] "Its Not Harmful" It is harmful to the brain, and impairs concentration which can cause the same outcome as drink and driving. Aside from a subjective change in perception and mood, short-term effects include increased heart rate, increased appetite and consumption of food, lowered blood pressure, impairment of short-term and working memory, psychomotor coordination, and concentration. Long-term effects are less clear. A study published August 2012 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and funded partly by NIDA and other NIH institutes provides objective evidence that, marijuana is harmful to the brain, at least for adolescents. It was found that the persistent use of marijuana before age 18 showed lasting harm to a person's intelligence, attention and memory. Quitting cannabis did not appear to reverse the loss. However, individuals who started cannabis use after the age of 18 did not show similar declines. [1] "Pot Can be Used In a Medical Way ro Release pain And Frustration." Marijuana can be used medically, but it does not relief frustration. Cannabis used medically has several well-documented beneficial effects. Among these are: the amelioration of nausea and vomiting, stimulation of hunger in chemotherapy and AIDS patients, lowered intraocular eye pressure (shown to be effective for treating glaucoma), as well as general analgesic effects (pain reliever). [1] However, this beneficial effect is not as big as its harmful effects, such as impairments to concentration and intelligence. "I Personally Believe Everyone Should Smoke A Joint But Others Disagree With My methods." I disagree as it can be harmful to smoke marijuana unless you have proper medical knowledge. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
There Must Have Been a First Human

Thank you Con for joining what was briefly a conversation with myself :) ------------------- I stated: There must have been a first human because there was once zero and now many. You responded: "This cannot be true because it would mean there was a person who was a human but his parents were not. Parents and children by definition must be of the same species." You also responded: "Keep in mind. . . .there is no essential quality to being human. . . .becoming human is a. . . gradual thing. . . .there is no grain of sand that makes it a pile" (Shortened for brevity, no intent to reduce context, consider my following comments against your full post). You seem to give two reasons why there could not have been a first human. One reason it seems you are saying there could not have been a first human because the first human's parents were human. Another reason it seems you are saying that there is no way to recognize a human therefore there was no first human. Since neither reason has a logical (to me) connection to falsifying the premise, I have to guess that I didn't understand one or both reasons and therefore am not sure how to compose a sound rebuttal, but here goes: If the first human's parents are required to be human then you're actually talking about three humans and haven't gone back to 'time zero' where there were no humans -or- you contend that humans have always existed. Humans are one of the most, if not the most recognizable creature on the planet. Humans exhibit a profound cognitive distinction from all other creatures to have ever appeared or currently exist. If you go back to a time when humans were not recognizable, then you've gone back too far in the discussion - the time when there were zero humans. But to claim that there could not be a first human because 'there is no essential quality to being human' implies everything is human and nothing is human. Humans haven't always existed. Humans are easily recognizable. There had to have been a first human.
There Must Have Been a First Human

This cannot be true because it would mean there was a person who was a human but his parents were not. Parents and children by definition must be of the same species. Keep in mind that human is a way we define some group of similar things in the world, and it, the term, has no affect on the world. In all likeliness there is no essential quality to being human, for example a person without arms is still human. A retarded person is still human. A dwarf is still human. A bald person is still human. If you have an artificial heart or veins you are still human. So becoming human is more of a gradual thing, it is like how you can add grains of salt and at some point it becomes a pile, but there is no grain of sand that makes it a pile.
There Must Have Been a First Human

Go easy on me - first timer - I notice a lot of debates have rules, definitions of terms or formats, but I'm going to skip all that and just see how this things goes. In internet discussions with others, I brought up what seems to be obvious, at least to me: There must have been a first human. I find that many disagree with that statement, but usually the discussion ends up with the other party(ies) referring to me as being stupid or uneducated. Debate.org seems much more opposition friendly with well constructed arguments that stay on-course with the topic, so I look forward to that continued trend. There must have been a first human. There was a time when the world population of humans was zero and the current population of humans is significant. Therefore, there had to be a time when the human population went from zero to more than zero. Except in the case of multiple births (twins, etc), a birth is expected to result in a one new creature. Therefore, when the population of humans increased from zero to more than zero, it is expected that the population grew by one, although I will grant that it may have grown from zero to up to 8, in the case of an octuplet birth. However, for the sake of argument in the case of a multiple birth, let's assign the first viable human from the birth canal to be considered the first human.
There Must Have Been a First Human

I think that species differentiation doesn't make sense to do over time. There were apes that were more and more human like, but you could never point to one and say that it was human but it's parents weren't. There would have to be some necessary trait to show the difference, but the parents would also have this trait to an extent. this all or none argument you keep making simply is an ignoring of the points that I am making. Is it too crazy to think that language that we use to describe the present doesn't work when describing large periods of time. A species literally means that you can breed with the other members. Every thing has been able to breed with generations before and after it, so you could never say one is human and one was not. It is too gradual of a change. This is the same with race. There wasn't a first white person, people who lived in the north gradually became whiter. Also My refutation was that your proposition leads to a contradiction, and is therefore necessarily false.
There Must Have Been a First Human

I'm having a hard time responding. You've not claimed that any of my assertions are wrong. In Round 2, you say that there was never a first human because using the term 'human' is putting humans into a strict category where strict categories don't make sense. You also say that the reason there was never a first human is because it's parents would have been non-human and that's a contradiction. I can't tell if you assert there has never been zero humans or when humans did begin to exist, that they did so as a group of simultaneous births or a group became human after they were born, or there actually was a first human, but since if another human had been there to see that first human they would have no idea it was a human because it would look and act in a way that a human observer would dismiss it as non-human even though it was actually human. I don't know what you are arguing? There was a first human because there used to be zero and now there are many and human population increases one individual at a time. The required next step from zero humans is one, the First Human. Thank you for the debate!
There Must Have Been a First Human

I am saying it is a quirk of grammar, we have categories but the lines between them are fuzzy. They don't make sense in any other way. Also Humans are only the most recognizable because you are a human. I think clown fish are pretty recognizable. Also your criteria for being human would imply that people with down syndrome are not human. My argument is that strict categories don't make sense, because there is no reality to them. Nature cannot tell us what a human is, we decide what it is. Also if by human we mean human species, then no human could ever be born of a non human. the genetic differences between each generation are small enough to be insignificant. If you want to draw the line between two Identical animals and call one human and one not then be my guest, but it doesn't make any sense. In order to say there was a first human you must do this. Categories are fluid, and they can never really describe the world because each thing is different in itself. My argument is essentially that There was no first human because if there were it would lead to a contradiction. Namely have parents of a different species. If there is no single trait essential to being human, then there is also no way of determining what is human and what is not. Also if the parents were human then you have to keep going and ask if its parents were human. If there had to be a first human then there should be some way of determining which human it was.
Free Will is Real and Compatible with Determinism

That's what most people refer to when they say determinism (just look at the dictionary and wikipedia definitions I gave), and it's the only definition you've given for "regular" determinism. If you really think "determinism" just means "some things are governed by laws, but some things might not be" then I think you'll find the vast majority in disagreement with you on that. Certainly it is a weird enough definition that you would have had to establish it in the debate, which you failed to do.