BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The troop surge is working

those are valid points, that it takes time to do stuff like teach iraqis. your point in this vein is a nice theory, but i'd have to hear a reputable major make the statement, to ensure it has a bearing in real life. the point being, many times theories sound good.. like iraqis should be doing their own thing... but it really depends on how much progess they're making and have made and all kinds of things. i need harder data, even if it just means a reputable opinion of someone in an official capacity. i was hesitant to join this debate. the reason? because i sort of knew that "working" to you meant that we're accomplishing many things that we previously have not, to a significant degree. and you were probably looking for things like... "your info is wrong, or much too narrow given all the other stuff" the later part of that statement sort of what i was arguing. i took the debate anyway, because there is so much more to consider than just the stat information that you initially posted.
The troop surge is working

dairygirl Thank you for this debate, it has been very interesting and you have opened up more ideas to me. I do understand how the surge is working, but the Iraqis aren't doing there part. We are currently teaching thousands of Iraqis to work for the police, army, etc. They can't be ready to defend their country in 1 day. It takes time to learn everything. It took our country 7 years to become officaily free (July 4th 1776- Treaty of Paris September 3rd 1783) Also another 5 years to adapt our current Constitution. So, why are we rushing the Iraqis so much? Of course we have better technology now, but the risks are higher too. Your argument could have only helped me, by saying that the surge has lowered violence in Iraq. That's what we are talking about here. I ment for you to argues reasons why the surge ISN'T working. You just say it is, and give reasons why we shouldn't have done it. The sub-title of te second article, says "The surge of American troops has dramatically reduced violence." That is what I'm arguing, the surge is working.
The troop surge is working

the economist is a good site for facts on the war.. http://www.economist.com... here's one on the surge reducing violence etc as you were saying, the graph is especially compelling on causaualties http://www.economist.com... as i said, we value our troops more than their people. but not to an endless degree such as if one soldier dies we're not gonna allow a thousand iraqis just to have prevented that. now, when the surge went in, killings in iraq were like at two thousand per year, now it's around three hundred. i don't think that includes deaths of american soldiers. last i heard, the deaths of amiericans was eight hundred per year, the worst amount, since the surge started. now, you have a point, that realtively given more soldiers more would die, but statistically there are in fact fewer soldiers dying per soldier stationed there. that's a good point, but more soliders are still dying. so with the soldier deaths increasing, we have to make a point to stop it. we laso have to stop iraqis to a lesser degree, we have a lesser duty. now, is it really two thousand deaths as the state i've given? if you look at the link, the average was probably around a thousand. so we're getting a solider killed for an iraqi saved. but, even if it was a soldier to iraqi death ratio that we could accept now, if the iraqis aren't ponying up and doing their part, we have to start giving up hope for them. ultimately, all we should be doing is giving them oversidght etc. these things are so dependant on facts and such, i'm not sure how so many people can form opinino on them based purely on rhetoric. i'm still forming my opinoin because there needs to be good stats on where there's strongholds, how many soldiers per iraqi saved we have, why they're not taking control with their own police and army's with our oversight etc. so i mean, we don't necessarily cut out the fluff, ie the surge... but ultimately we should, and it really depens on the sitution as far as right now. so is it working? "working means accomplishing what it's meant to do" is way too vague. that hasn't addressed my issue that working isn't concrete. it's reducing violence, but at what cost to our soldiers? and why aren't they doing anything? and another element, ron paul would push, is that us being there is making it worse. working isn't necessarily keeping things down by force, working is what matters to us ultimately..... not necessarily by force with many soldier dead, not necessarily staying at all if it means they're getting worse and madder, not neceessarily if they're not doing their part. those are what matters. i can't give concretes... but that's the nature of teh beast. many uncertainties. many facts that need to be seen. the only sure thing i know, is that you and myself even are not qualifed to answer them. probably no one is really, but there are surely more who have much more knowledge and insight on this stuff than we do. is it working? maybe. not necessarily. who knows? i'd like to meet him. and i'm not just saying that to be cynical, i'm sure there's people in the know out there.
Pokemon: Gen 1 Starters

Well, unfortunately my opponent has forfeited the final round and conceded the debate to me. I shall now make my closing presentation. As we have seen, in GENERERATION 1, where the starters are bulbasaur. squirtle and charmander, bulbasaur cannot learn a single move that is "super effective" on pokemon that have a type advantage over it. Charmander(Charizard)'s only real weakness is water. The rest can be countered by learning certain moves. However, this is a considerable disadvantage too, since water is the most common type in the pokemon world. Squirtle as Blastoise can counter every one of its weaknesses just by learning ice beam and earthquake. Although it is damaged normally by most types, it has the highest defense and special defense among the starters. As far as advantages against top trainers are considered, I've provided charts to adequately prove that Squirtle and its evolutions have the best collective advantages against the gym leaders and elite four. Final comparisons (IN GENERATION 1 ONLY):In terms of popularity among viewers/gamers:Charmander > Bulbasaur > SquirtleType weaknesses:Squirtle (2 weaknesses) > Charmander (3) > Bulbasaur (4) (However, Charizard is 4x weak to rock, so it may be counted as 4 weaknesses)I have NOT included type effectiveness by offense, since blastoise and charizard can learn ground/ice/rock etc. moves that are not of their type. All 3 can also learn normal type moves. Offensive effectiveness depends on the moveset, which varies between trainersMoveset (in terms of type effectiveness):Blastoise > Charizard > VenusaurSTAB:Bulbasaur> Charmander > Squirtle (Bulbasaur has dual STAB in all 3 forms; Charmander only gets it as Charizard; Squirtle has single STAB throughout)Effectiveness against leaders/E4:Blastoise > Charizard > VenusaurBulbasaur has a clear advantage only in STAB. Squirtle comes out on top in the extremely crucial moveset and type weakness categories. Since popularity isn't a factor in deciding the "best pick", it is clear that SQUIRTLE is the best Gen 1 starter, and NOT BULBASAUR. I thank my opponent for instigating a very interesting debate. It is a matter of deep regret that he had to forfeit 2 rounds and concede the debate to me. The rest is up to the voters. ..
Pokemon: Gen 1 Starters

Oh dear... This is a huge shame. And all this after I finally got to interact with a smogon specialist.Well, this has been fun, Mr. Pro. I really regret we can't finish this off. But I don't think this is your fault either...Thank you so much for an extremely good debate, YoungTurtleBear. I've seen your debates too and you're very adept at this. I really wasn't sure I could convincingly win this one. I hope to compete with you again. So, that's it, everyone. For now, all we can do is wait and see if Pro returns to compete in round 5.
Pokemon: Gen 1 Starters

I will not be able to continue this debate because of personal family issues. I will not have the acess to internet. Thank you so much Con for debating with me. You have been very fun to debate with. Please have fun in other rounds. I am reibbly sorry for having to leave. Once again, thank so much and I am sorry.Because I am no longer able to continue, Con will win this debate. I really wished to conintue. Bye Jay-D!R.I.PMinjung YoonPlease vote for the Con. He made excellent points. He seems extremly cool. I've seen some of his other debates. I hope to debate in future rounds.
Pokemon: Gen 1 Starters

Thank you for your response Con.The earliest you can find a Growlithe is in Route 7 and 8. This is right after you exit Rock Tunnel, and you are able to dodge all the trainers to get to that patch of grass in route 7 and 8. You get your Growlithe at around level 15-18. And the average team pokemon level around 20-25. So, by going back and fighting those trainers, Growlithe would be on par with the rest of your team. Also, Arcanine has a higher base stat than Charizard. Arcanine is also a better sweeper than Charizard.Although you will get some of the water types late, this is only a minor down side. There is something called training. The pro is saying that Slowbro, Starmie, and Gyrados are not as good because they are late in game. These pokemon are just as easy to train as any other pokemon. This game was meant for little kids to also play, so the game isn't meant for training to be hard.Vileplume and Venusaur have the same type, but what matters is the moveset. Venusaur has a larger moveset, so it is able to cover its self more. So, Vileplume is assessable is later game, has a worse movepool than Venusaur, and Venusaur has better stats. In the end, Vileplume is outclassed by Venusaur.(These are only attacking moves)Bulbasaur has a weakness to 11 flying type moves, 12 fire type moves, 11 psychic moves, and 7 ice moves. But out of the 40 weakness moves, only 23 moves are able to be obtained within B/G/FR/LG games and are not OHKO moves. Charmander has a weakness to 15 water type moves, 14 ground type moves, and 7 rock move. But out the 36 moves, 32 moves are able to be obtained within B/G/FR/LG games and are not OHKO moves.Squirtle has weaknesses to 22 grass moves and 11 electric moves. And all of these moves are able to obtained within B/G/FR/LF.This goes for weaknesses as well. Bulbasaur has the least of amount of weaknesses to moves and has the most amount of resistances to moves. For the offensive chart, the type chart only shows STAB moves. The chart completely disregards other moves. So, the chart is completely off. Venusaur can also learn ground, rock, normal, and fighting type moves. Both charts do not consider the Gym Leader moves. For example, Dragonite and Aerodactyl can use wing attack on Venusaur and have a super effectiveness, but Venusaur has high Special defense stats. So, the charts are flawed because of this. So, you can no longer make these conclusions that squirtle is the best starter. Once again, thank you Con! I await your new response.
Pokemon: Gen 1 Starters

DebateTo make this debate fair, we will not be comparing them just to each other, but to everything else. So, it would be unfair to say that bulbasaur is not the best because charmander has the advantage. Bulbasaur This is part is only about basic pokemon forms. As a basic pokemon, Bulbasaur has dual stab. It has dual stab in poison and grass. Unlike Squirtle and Charmander, Bulbasaur has dual typing, so it gets dual stab. In the metagame tier of little cup, bulbasaur can be used as a revenge killer, a special wall, or a sweeper wall. These roles are key to a pokemon team. Although Bulbasaur's main use is as a wall, but with the right team to back him up, he can be a wall and a offensive attacker. Charmander is still hopeless in the metagame tier. Even within little cup, his role is easily overrun by Ponyta or Houndour. Fire types are meant to be able to sweep, but with his weak attack, he cannot do his job and is only left with many weaknesses. Squirtle is better than Charmander, but can not compete with Bulbasaur. But, Tentacool and Shellder can replace Squirtle with doing his role and doing other roles as well. Squirtle's moveset is also not fit for little cup, but in an other tier he would be too weak. So, Bulbasaur comes out better than Squirtle and Charmander in basic form.IvasaurThis part is only about the stage 1 forms. As a stage one form now, Ivasaur still contains dual stab while the other forms do not. Once again, there is a set advantage. While Ivasaur is in RU, Ivasaur is a higher metagame teir than both others. Charmeleon is yet to be classed within a metagame because he is not in competition for NU, but he cannot be sent to little cup because Charmeleon is not a basic form pokemon. So, Charmeleon is so bad that it is yet to be classed. Wartortle is in NU, and its only purpose is as a spinier, but other pokemon can do its job better.Venusaur This part is only about the stage 2 forms. As a stage two form, Venusaur maintains its dual stab. But, Charizard also gets dual stab now. Yet, Blastiose is still only pure water. Venusaur is in the OU tier, Charizard is only in the RU tier and Blastiose is in the UU tier. So, Venusaur comes out a better use then all of them. Since Venusaur is a higher tier than the others, it is safe to say that Venusaur is the better one.Game PlayEven in the games Blue/Green/LeafGreen/FireRed, Venusaur is able to be the best grass type in the game. The only pokemon that is able to challenge Venusaur is Vileplume. But vileplume can not cover for its weakness. Charizard is easily overrun by Arcanine. And Blastiose is overrun by Slowbro, Starmie, and Gyrados.
Pokemon: Gen 1 Starters

Rules1) Round one is an acceptance round, so it will be a confirmation round.2) Round two, three, and four will be argument/refuting of arguments.3) Round five will be the rebuttal round. So, you cannot start new arguments and counter current arguments. The purpose of round five is to provide a summary of the round and why the voters should vote for you.4)This is to voters: Please do not put your personal opinions as voting reasons, and only use the material within the debate. Thank you. So the case is. .. Out of the generation one starter Pokémon, Bulbasaur would be the best pick.
RazaMobizo And RazaTheHacker Were The Same Person

There are still traces. the three debates you cited. they could be interpreted as the Raza-trolls spam. Because they actually finished those debates without forfeiting any rounds those debates filled up the DDO homepage section 'debates in the voting period. these debates are usually the only debates people bother reading or voting on; so filling up what room is for debates on that page with really poor quality debates can be considered spam. At least half of this debate is going to a perfect example of that. The users who where hoping to read something interesting will leave from reading this debate feeling they have just wasted some of there time, and go on to skimming through the other debates on the home page. By the way; I believe you meant to type "...trolling, crude language, etc..." but instead you put "...trolling, crude, language etc..." Crude is not a word that should go by itself like that. Audience even if we are to allow that Pro's final round case gave enough reason to be sure that those accounts were not closed for any reason other than multi-accounting; it does not prove that these two multi-accouters are the same person. So after considering that important thought; we can revise my last round summary. It has not changed much. 1) Pro's claim that webmaster said so is not sourced 2) all we know is the webmaster closed both accounts, and this could be for any reason; such as they are two separate cases of multi-accounting. 3) Pro has a very low percentile and we would expect him to wish to raise it with some wins somehow. 4) awfully convenient that after these two suspicious accounts are on scene and disappear SuperRobotWars has a debate about it.....with a cousin that conveniently has inside information on the matter..... 5) any claim I make using 3) and 4) are equally as provable as Pro's assertion. 6) because of 1) and 2) Pro has not affirmed the resolution 7) because of 5) the resolution is not affirmed. and last.... 8) because of 6) and 7) you should VOTE CON! If you have read this debate and feel frustrated that it has wasted your time in someway; take a chill pill and relax. And I have the perfect way for you to learn to do that if you find it difficult. http://www.youtube.com... Watch the video and learn to talk turtle with Crush.
RazaMobizo And RazaTheHacker Were The Same Person

your sourcing there various debates proves nothing. except that maybe bad debaters find they enjoy arguing with others on their same skill level. The webmaster commented nowhere on any of those sources and I really don't think you would try making us believe that he contacted you personally on the matter. The only evidence we have as to his thoughts is that both the accounts are in fact closed . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... Being closed is not sufficient evidence that they were in fact multi-accouters at all, much less being the same multi-accouter. I could very well be that they were closed for spam, trolling, crude language, harassment, threats, fraud, ect. .. . all reasons people get reported and there accounts closed. Even grated its for multi-accounting; they could have been two separate multi-accouters. In fact there is reason enough to suspect that is the case; in the comment section of the following debate in this link . http://www.debate.org... my opponent allegedly claimed that the person behind both accounts was his cousin. But this is all likely a ruse, offering something partially true so that its easier to believe. when in fact it has always been superrobotwars and his cousin as the Razamobzo and RazatheHacker. SuperRobotWars as mobizo and his cousin as theHacker. With this collaborated effort they could appear to be online at the same time. Why would my opponent create 2 suspicious accounts? So that after they are caught and reported he can make THIS DEBATE as a possible easy win. SuperRobotWars has an incredibly low percentile and likely will do anything to raise it. Now can I prove that paranoid claim? of course not; and the point I wish to get across is that likewise neither can my opponent prove his. But in for this debates resolution, my alternate proposal makes the resolution not affirmed and thus you should vote Con this debate! quick summery: 1) Pro's claim that webmaster said so is not sourced 2) all we know is the webmaster closed both accounts, and this could be for any reason. 3) Pro has a very low percentile and we would expect him to wish to raise it with some wins somehow. 4) awfully convenient that after these two suspicious accounts are on scene and disappear SuperRobotWars has a debate about it. .. .. with a cousin that conveniently has inside information on the matter. .. .. 5) any claim I make using 3) and 4) are equally as provable as Pro's assertion. 6) because of 1) and 2) Pro has not affirmed the resolution 7) because of 5) the resolution is not affirmed. and last. .. . that is all.
Animals should not be kept in captivity

First I would like to point out that often the captivity of animals is to the benefit of the animal in question for example the work done by the Smithsonian national zoo in which various almost extinct species have been bred in captivity to ensure the survival of the animal in question, one such animal being the Black-footed ferret, in 1985 this small helpless animal was on the brink of extinction with only 18 individuals remaining, with the help of captivity of this particular species the park managed to breed over 1000 new individuals, and release 800 back into the wild by 1991 this is an amazing recovery only made possible by the help of captivity. Secondly, often the captivity of animals helps to create vaccines for varies diseases and illnesses, the animal testing programs have bought to the human race such miracles as penicillin, tetanus vaccines, and modern anaesthetics, all created thanks to the captivity of mice and the ability to test on them, are you saying that we should allow all the animals used for necessary medical testing free and allow illnesses to spread and begin to kill the population at an increasing rate? thirdly your argument suggests that a large amount of the animal population is in captivity, and that simply is not true, the small amount that are in captivity are kept well fed, well looked after and are generally well looked after by the handlers and carers. I look forward to your reply Merry Christmas to you
Resolved: The existence of God can be proven indirectly.

Resolved: The existence of God can be proven indirectly. Definitions: existence: the actual presence of. proven: made true indirectly: from reasons outside the direct idea Contentions: I. Argument of cosmology. The Universe, as the majority of the scientific community agrees, was created from the big-bang. This supernova created all the elements essential for the universe's own stability and survival. The question arises, how can this happen? Cosmologists have asked this question for such a long time. The only answer is God. For an event, like the big bang to occur, there needed to be a catalyst or cause. Since something cannot come from nothing then there needed to be an atemporal and a non-contingent beginning. God was that "necessary cause." Science has only come back to this conclusion every time. Take Einstein or instance, he tried to prove that the universe spontaneously created itself. He said this, "it was the worst experiment I ever did." Even Einstein claims that its impossible for the universe to create itself, on the basis that the necessary elements for its creation were not there. God is the necessary being. (Reason 1 for existence) II. Argument of motion. According to Aquinas, the moved cannot be the mover. I.e. something cannot be potential and at the same time actual. E.g. A fire cannot be potentially hot, because its actual hot. It can be potentially cold, but its not actually cold. The Universe cannot sustain itself on its own. The Universe cannot be potentially existent while at the same time actually existent. A greater force was necessary to put the universal laws into motion for the effect of potentiality to actuality. Science has not proven a force great enough to do this, for as ive stated the universe is in actuality not potentiality. God is mover of the potential to actual. (Reason 2 for existence) III. Argument of history. Since man's beginning the idea of God has been in their minds. From worshiping tree spirits, to the polytheistic religions, to the monotheistic religions. The idea of God cannot be spontaneous if God's existence is not actual. Take the color analogy, its impossible to conceive a "new" color, because that new color is not in existence. Its possible to create an idea from a mixture of ideas, however the idea of some God's/greater forces existence has always been there. Therefore, the existence of God is actual. (Reason 3 for existence)
Clan jangle presents: "Impossibly hard questions only a genius could know"

AnswersQ1) Burj Khalifa Q2) Because they "make up" everything Q3) Anyone can roast beef, but not everyone can pea soup! Q4) One has claws at the end of its paws and the other is a pause at the end of a clause. Q5) Seaweed. 1) The library, because it has so many stories INCORRECT2) Because they "make up" everything CORRECT3) Anyone can roast beef, but not everyone can pea soup! CORRECT4) One has claws at the end of its paws and the other is a pause at the end of a clause. CORRECT5) Seaweed CORRECTScore= 4/5Con has failed the test and therefore loses. Good try.