BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

we are using the most power incarnation of doomsday. like i said doomsday can regenerate off of nothing. The person that blast him to skeleton was emperix he was the embodiment of en trophy. En trophy is the end of time. well it depends on what type of magic . lex luther did not bring him back to life he just study his tissues. He actually is a mindless beast but he still beat justice league by himself with one hand tied behind his back. Mind attacks don't work on doomsday because he is mindless. first of brainiac merge with him that is different from physic attacks. Goku isn't technically magic but he does use magic items. The magic that must be use should be very high like reality warping . Doomsday would adapt from any energy blast attack. Magic in dc universe is energy . doomsday will get stronger and kill goku . I doubt goku durability is in doomsday level. http://en.wikipedia.org...
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

... I admit, that part was not the best. Also, I forgot to ask, Which Doomsday are we using? There are multiple versions, and it depends on which one you are using. Recommended that you use the original, you have the best chance at winning. Molecules aren't alive. So he couldn't be regenerated. Also he was blasted until there was just bone left, and had to have Lex Luthor to bring him back to life. Superman (vol. 2) #175. Also (original, if you choose) he is as dumber than dumb. You could trick him into walking into a volcano with a leg of a cow! Mind attacks can always work. He even got mind controlled by Brainiac when he was smart! Intelligent! (V2) Also he is Kryptonian. And based off Superman, he is week to magic. Goku is magic. "You can't kill Doomsday twice." Correct. Hundreds of times.
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

you argument is indeed sloppy. anyway doomsday as seen in the stats is considered durable to any planet busting. molecules are you kidding me doomsday can regenerate off of nothing . why do you think they had to put him in the end of time where nothing survives to kill him. he eventually was saved due to brainiac getting him. look no matter what goku does to doomsday would regrow and adapt and get stronger. you cant kill doomsday twice. doomsday gets this.
doomsday would beat goku in a fight.

Good day dear sir! My name is Whosawhat (as you can tell). I am a huge comic geek and I know many things about topics such as this. However, I know little of Goku, and I have never watched the show. But... I do know what he can do (story about Goku does not matter). Goku, as seen in Death Battle, is a near god individual, even pitted against Superman. Goku can fly. Doomsday can't. Superman was stupid enough to fight Doomsday on the ground, which is why he lost. Goku's Kahmehamehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! can destroy the earth if unhindered by any object. I am pretty shure that the aliens that remake Doomsday after his molecules are gone. Also, Doomsday has no defense against psychic and magic attacks. Even if they couldn't kill him, the can banish him to the void or something.
The use of Sweatshop Labour.

Ok, so any of you who are reading this are probably wondering how, after the first sentence of my opponent's last argument, he suddenly developed perfect grammar and syntax. I was too. So I copied and pasted a line of his speech into google. "Though most sweatshops stop short of such wholesale abuse, work conditions are undeniably poor and human rights violations are rampant. " The first result was this article: . http://findarticles.com... My opponent blatantly copied and pasted two paragraphs of this, and that was his last arguments. Sadly, he can't even copy and paste right, so one of the paragraphs is actually in his argument twice. Either way, none of my arguments have been refuted.
The use of Sweatshop Labour.

Okay first of all kids with labor get no education at all which sucks for their future! Though most sweatshops stop short of such wholesale abuse, work conditions are undeniably poor and human rights violations are rampant. Workers suffer from dangerous equipment and safety procedures are few or nonexistent. Hours are long and the work week is a full six or seven days. But agitating for better conditions results in termination of employment. Thus, given no leverage for negotiations and few economic alternatives, workers are forced to accept the sweatshop lifestyle or suffer even more abject poverty. Such conditions are not only tragic, they are an affront to human dignity and an extensive violation of human rights. There are no words strong enough to condemn practices which exploit human beings to the point of depriving them of their humanity. Seeing these things or even merely reading about them can cause a strong emotional reaction. It is very easy to react as the young king does, by refusing to use any objects created by so much suffering. However, this gut response only serves to placate the conscience without necessarily alleviating the problem. The results of boycotting are dubious at best. Boycotters insist that the ills of sweatshops can be fixed by refusing to purchase products made in them. The owners of the sweatshops, they reason, will see that their products aren't being purchased and, succumbing to this economic coercion, will make the necessary changes to render their factories more safe, friendly, and considerate work environments. Kristoff and Wudunn explain, however, that when boycotts occur, rather than fixing conditions in sweatshops, large corporations will often shift production away entirely from countries with sweatshops, resulting in a loss of jobs for workers. Such conditions are not only tragic, they are an affront to human dignity and an extensive violation of human rights. There are no words strong enough to condemn practices which exploit human beings to the point of depriving them of their humanity. Seeing these things or even merely reading about them can cause a strong emotional reaction. It is very easy to react as the young king does, by refusing to use any objects created by so much suffering. However, this gut response only serves to placate the conscience without necessarily alleviating the problem. The results of boycotting are dubious at best. Boycotters insist that the ills of sweatshops can be fixed by refusing to purchase products made in them. The owners of the sweatshops, they reason, will see that their products aren't being purchased and, succumbing to this economic coercion, will make the necessary changes to render their factories more safe, friendly, and considerate work environments. Kristoff and Wudunn explain, however, that when boycotts occur, rather than fixing conditions in sweatshops, large corporations will often shift production away entirely from countries with sweatshops, resulting in a loss of jobs for workers.
The use of Sweatshop Labour.

It's true about what you said kids under the age of 10 are forced to work but there's also adults who are forced as well.But the young workers who are always forced will have no time for education or schooling-is this equitable? Also sweatshop labour creates an imbalance in the global markets-a company that does not use sweatshops cannot possibly sell their products at prices as low as a company that uses sweatshop labour. Also imagine all the sacrafices that are made when they are working, phisically or mentally abuse and many more and then they bring to USA or canada and it's on sale for like 4 dollars. But all those sacrafices it took just to make that jacket, carpet or more costs more than what the price is on. Like pretend a kid makes a jacket through all those days and nights and then the shipping and the packing, imagine that like seriously. Not only that but we say like oh we have no more space left for our factories or industries so then we put it on other people's land and then pollut their land and the environment. And then it goes on and on! So think about all the sacrafices the kids make, instead of going to a store and saying OMG look at this jacket it's so pretty i wanna buy and everything think about all the things and punishment they have to take while we're here just sitting and buying new things as it comes out!
The use of Sweatshop Labour.

A sweatshop is a factory, where people(children)work for a very small wage, producing products such as clothes, toys, shoes, and other consumer goods. The term connotes a factory in which the workers are kept in a harsh environment with inadequate ventilation, and workers may sometimes be abused physically, mentally, or sexually, subjected to long hours, harsh or unsafe conditions, and the like. Sweatshops often fail to pay a living wage. Some companies have been found of using children in their subcontracting sweatshops. Also it's all young workers under the age of 10 who get forced to do all these dangerous and risk taking work.
Atheism is a Lie

I am Pro. I have yet to recieve a satisfactory rebuttle to this argument. Hopefully, this time around , my opponent will not use critical fallacies one after another in place of his argument. If you do not know what a "fallacy" is, please do not accept this debate. There are no rules in logical debates. The only rule is that you be logical. If you are illogical , or only want to discuss things based on a matter of your own opinion, please do not accept this debate. I present 3 constructs, in which i argue each is a logical truth on its own.. As well as my final conclusion being deduced from the combination of all three constructs. You can attempt to refute any part of my construct, definitions or logic. Just please do so logically. My resolution is "Atheism is a lie." Below is my logical argument supporting my resolution. Belief...assumption of truth with or without evidence Disbelief assumption of falsehood due to a lack or contradictory evidence. Faith. An assertive Belief without valid evidence. Knowing. An assertive belief with valid evidence. Construct 1 Premise1 : no one can know if God exists of not. Premise2: to claim to know is to have valid evidence Conclusion: whoever claims to know if God exists or not, is a liar. Construct 2 Premise 1: Believers claim they have faith God exists. Premise 2: to have faith is a belief without valid evidence (see defintions) Conclusion: Believers do not claim to "know" if God exists. Construct 3 Premise 1: Atheists claim they disbelieve God exists. Premise 2: disbelief or rejection of a claim is based on a lack of valid evidence and an abundance of contradictory evidence. (See definitions) Conclusion: Atheists claim to "know" if God exists. Final Conclusion.: Atheism is a lie by definition and logic. Report this Argument Report this Argument
This House believes that parents should be able to kill their children during a time of famine

I shall now move forth onto my rebuttal: Opp mentioned the fact that when you're put into a bad circumstance, you shouldn't be forced to be put out of it because other people also are put into bad circumstances. We see that this is logically and ethically flawed for two reasons: Firstly, you cannot compare the immense suffrage of starving Sudanese people to the fact that Mark Zuckerberg couldn't see some colours. Secondly: Racism is bad in America, I understand, but people still have the agency to be able to protest that racism and point out the bigot/s for his/her actions. This isn't the case for people struck by famine and I will link you back to the context I gave, where I told you that people's consumption of goods is based off of their background. This means that the middle-class families and higher are able to afford the plane ticket to get out of the country if a situation like this arises. They, like people in America, have the agency to do so. Poorer people struck by famine however don't have the ability to afford that plane ticket out of their circumstance, and so have to suffer further. Finally, what you're saying is that if we had the technology to do so, we'd bring suicide victims back from the dead. They wanted their suffering to end. Why then keep them in the EXACT same circumstance? And also, who are you, as the state, to make choices on MY behalf? People make choices for reasons, and what THEY believe will make them feel better, so then why prolong their suffering. I'm not saying kids aren't strong enough, but they certainly shouldn't be kept in this horrific circumstance. I will now move onto my second argument about taking people out of circumstance. Yes, we do agree that the right to life is the basis upon which all rights are given. Without the right to life, you wouldn't be able to have the freedom of dignity, or association, or freedom of speech, etc. However, we see that due to the nature of the circumstance some people are put into, these people in particular are having their right to dignity harmed. They feel as though they don't have the power to help themselves. As you may know, the right to dignity is one of the most fundamental human rights as it gives you the ability to feel as though you are equal to other people. Why does the infringement of this right mean we ought to be able to take one's life? Because when you're actively being put down, and you, as I said earlier, don't have the agency to stop this suffering from happening, you should be able to take yourself out of that situation. In conclusion, we see that it is better to be able to take away the right to life rather than prolong the infringement on their basic human rights that gives them dignity, and to end their suffering prematurely. I challenge the Opposition to tell us why we would rather have them suffer. I hand the debate over to the Opposition.
This House believes that parents should be able to kill their children during a time of famine

So the motion is THBT parents should be able to kill their children during a time of famine and as opposition, I oppose to this motion. Before anything else, I would like to begin with my rebuttals. Pro's point mentioned that when you are forced into a bad circumstance, you should get out of it. However it just so happens that there are millions of people "forced" into unfortunate circumstances such as being born an african-american in times of racism being a common type of discrimination. Do these millions of people have to die? Steve Jobs was raised in a foster home. If he had been killed, do you think Apple would ever have been created? No. Mark Zuckerberg is colour blind. Without him, would you even have that facebook account on you? No. If you put it to a different perspective, the only point you are making is people are too weak to deal with their problems even though that's not true. In advance, if you are about to say that kids are not strong enough, then you have no proof. To see whether or not the kids are strong enough, why not just wait and see whether they die from or survive the famine? Now moving on to my points. Everyone has rights. The right to eat, drink, sleep and move. The most important right however, is the right to live. It is a doorway to all other rights because what can you do when you are dead? The reason why it is so important is because it acts as a platform for all rights. Without platforms, rights are useless. For example, what use is the right to eat when there is no food? . When you die, the platform crumbles and you and your lifeless body will have no more rights to exercise. When we link it to this debate, you get the picture of parents taking away this right to life from their children. This act of killing to what benefit? Why turn that small chance to nothing by killing? It is just pointless. In conclusion, I have told you about the right to life and it's relation to the famine and survival. Again as opp, I oppose to this motion and thank you.
This House believes that parents should be able to kill their children during a time of famine

When South Sudan was rocked by extreme famine, I as the Proposing side would much rather end the suffering of young children prematurely than to extend it, and I believe that my side proves this most effectively under the following points: I'll firstly be speaking about how we ought to do this due to circumstance. I'll then be dealing with rebuttal in my second round and be telling you how due to this circumstance you should therefore be able to be taken out of it. I'll also then be dealing with summation and rebuttal in my third speech. But firstly let's deal with a couple of points of context: What is currently happening in status quo? We are facing a great deal of societal division between the working-class and the lower class. This is because the wealthy/middle-class have the ability to sustain themselves, whilst the poor don't have the capacity to be able to do this. The poor get poorer. Secondly, we see that people's consumption of goods is different according to their background: The wealthy flaunt their riches with expensive cars and houses, whilst the poor just barely manage to scrape enough money for rent or even for food. Now that my context is over, I will be moving on to my first argument, on circumstance. People are put into this world arbitrarily. You do not get a choice whether or not you are placed in this world. It is therefore logical to say that people are placed into circumstances arbitrarily. You do not choose whether you're born into a rich family, middle-class family or a poor family. Therefore, it follows that you ought to be able to get taken out of a bad circumstance. Why? Because you have been placed in that circumstance by force, and if you're placed into a circumstance that you have no say in, you ought to be able to be taken out of it. So in conclusion, due to the nature of circumstance, and the fact that you're put into a circumstance arbitrarily, you ought to be able to take yourself out of that circumstance. I now pass the debate over to the Opposition to address their rebuttal and arguments.
In Vitro Fertilization

The reality of the situation is that IVF is an elect procedure in which allows couples incapable of conceiving or single women to have a chance at a family. The process beings with fertility drugs that are typically administered via injection over a period of seven to ten days and may be used alone or in combination with each other. The goal of the fertility drugs is to produce the simultaneous maturation of multiple eggs, which must be harvested prior to ovulation. Once the ova are sufficiently primed, they must be harvested. About a day and a half before ovulation, the IVF specialist will administer a final large dose of hCG. The level of egg development determines when sperm may be added in a process called insemination. The patient's husband, partner, or donor provides the sperm for insemination. If her partner has low sperm count, low motility, or abnormally shaped sperm, the specialist can perform treatments to improve the chances of extracting healthy sperm. Embryo transfer is typically performed as an outpatient procedure, and typically occurs three to seven days after insemination, depending on the health of the embryos. This procedure is usually similar to the mock embryo transfer your specialist would have performed during preparation. Once the patients are inseminated the pregnancy is practically normal. The end result being a healthy young kid or multiple kids, the embryos that are not viable or extra are either destroyed or used in medical research. In cases of donation to medical research the live stem cells produced in the embryo, can be used to help leukemia patients, the stem cells can be used to regenerate the bone marrow lost during treatment with chemo radiation. These embryos giving a cancer patient their lives back once done the chemo has eradicated the disease within their body, saving so many lives through a new innovative technique.
In Vitro Fertilization

Technicality or not The fertilization of an embryo is the creation of life thus meaning termination or experimentation of this fetus in anyway is deemed as murder or tortured. This is not only ethically amoral but seen as a crime against god and nature itself. By terminating the development of an embryo they are essentially denying that fetus life. Meaning that they are killing a living human being, they can breath in the uterus and cry and no one knows if they have thoughts or not if the fetus can not speak yet just like an infant. Killing a infant or fetus is still murder whether it is fully developed or not.
In Vitro Fertilization

Whether it"s an embryo or a 5 yr old child technically it is still a parent"s property. Killing a 5 yr old is definitely unethical but that is because they are a living human being. They are capable of thriving without surviving inside another, where as a child is living because they are taken care of physically. Either way it is the parent"s decision as what to do with their embryo for it has not technically lived, taken its first steps or breathed actual air for their own. To speak in this tone is quite morbid and inhumane but it is fact no one can tell you what to be done with your child unless in case of abuse and that is when it is a living breathing, about to form it's own thoughts human being thus making it justified
In Vitro Fertilization

Excess embryos are usually destroyed, in cases of abandonment or termination giving consent by the parents. The parents can also elect to give embryo to medical research. Abandoning or termination of embryos in most people"s eyes is seen as murder. Those who elect to donate the excess embryos to research are seen as individuals who do not care about the human life being tortured and used for the advancement for medical technology. This is unethical in many who are religious and are morally obligated. This is playing god taking out the unpredictability of life is what god has given us and by changes this plan we are no longer in his gracious
In Vitro Fertilization

The genetic screening of embryos can allow the parents reassurance in their child being healthy by ruling out any chromosomal abnormalities and choosing an embryo that is more viable. This process will produce less stress overall and ensure that the parent will have no further medical difficulties in that families for the child. This entire process having a promising future in which miscarriages and birth defects will be nothing but a thing of the past. Life is no longer unpredictable but we know the chance of the survival and the probability of a child living a long exceptionally healthy life.
In Vitro Fertilization

People who use this method avoid implanting chromosomally abnormal embryos that result in either not getting pregnant or a possible miscarriage. "The concept of a designer child is not what most doctors are interested in being part of."" Dr. Michael Glassner A designer child indeed this process allowing the parents to select traits such as hair color, eye color and potential height. It brings into question" just because we can does it mean we should? " By doing so we are taking gods natural gift and making it a scientific procedure in which babies are chosen and if not wanted destroyed unable to take their first breath of life.
In Vitro Fertilization

The process of IVF consists of a gonadotropin releasing hormone is injected three times daily this is to stimulate the follicles to grow as many eggs as possible during your cycle, for about two weeks. This is for patient who have a low egg count by adding the drug they amplify the chance of having a viable egg to being the process of fertilization. Followed by the harvesting of the egg this endoscopic procedure has little to no complication once harvested the egged are then combined with the sperm of their husband, partner or chosen donor. After this the doctor waits and takes samples from each zygote to test for any genetic abnormalities then they implant the healthy ones likely to survive in the uterus. This is not done so that these scientist can play god but ensure that whatever child they have is healthy after all the struggle they have gone through to actually gain a baby.