BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ultimate battle: Batman(Pro) vs. Jigglypuff(Con)

While I will admit that Batman is a borderline superhero and has done his fair share of crime-fighting for Gotham, and the world in some cases, I'll also admit he's ridiculous to the extent that he can only do everything he does because of his money and his mind. (More so the money.) But I can't help but wonder why Gotham is in such a state of disarray with the amount of crime, with Batman and his above genius level intellect, $30 billion earned from business, and Olympian Greek-god like body? Ok, if he's not the richest man in Gotham (or even the DC universe), he's probably in the top 5 of the richest, and he's not putting any of that money into any charities of any kind to try and lower the crime rates in the long-term for Gotham? I'm pretty sure he had the idea of vengeance from his parent's deaths happening in front of him as a child as a reason to rid crime from the streets. And I'm positive that by now he would've realized that he'd do more good if he started giving out more money for education so young people don't have to worry about resorting to illegal activities and go down that road in the first place. Even setting up soup kitchens would help. But no, he spends $682 million(rounded, link -> http://tinyurl.com...), on his suit and a few of his vehicles. (The price may cost more because I'm not sure with all his gadgets that even half of them all are listed here. I mean, there's no shark-repellant bat-spray listed.) Let’s also not forget to mention Batman’s terrible surfing skills, I mean come on, and even Joker did better than him.) http://www.youtube.com... Pro also claims that jigglypuff is not a fighter, that a jigglypuff would have no idea what to do without a trainer, and wouldn’t stand a chance against a superhero or super human. My opponent clearly has never played Super Smash Bros. Brawl or Melee. If he did he’d know and understand that jigglypuff, like any pokemon, can function perfectly fine without a trainer and can make rational decisions on its own Jigglypuff has also fought, and won, against characters like Snake from Metal Gear Solid, Samus from Metroid Prime, Captain Falcon, Ike, Marth, Roy, Link, Zelda, & Ganon, in which each fight Jigglypuff would use his cocky and cute voice to lull his opponents into unconsciousness or inflate himself, covering quite a distance and becoming invincible. He’d also use his oddly shaped legs, or whatever you want to call it to pound, and would use his entire body to hurl himself towards someone as an attack. If Snake, Samus, and Captain Falcon will struggle to defeat a marshmallow like jigglypuff, wouldn't Batman?
Ultimate battle: Batman(Pro) vs. Jigglypuff(Con)

Second of all, let's go with the facts. Batman is a known figure throughout the history of superheroes. He is considered the "wisest and undeniable" member of the justice league and the dc universe. He has fought monsters, megalomaniacs, and the mentally insane with the power of only his fist, brains, and fearfulness. In a total according to batman. wiki, he has in total beat more than 100 of the dc's most feared villains WITHOUT SUPERPOWERS. Batman is known to be the last of the remaining good characters when the others have turned rogue. For example, the game injustice:Gods among us. Who was the remaining justice league hero who didn't turn evil? BATMAN. Jiggly puff is a pokemon who's character traits include cocky, cute, and arcane. Jiggly puff was never a good fighter suggesting that it's main weaponry come from its squishy body and taunting voice. If a jiggly puff were ever to go in battle with a human, it would be very likely that it would have no clue what to do without a trainer. Therefore settling the fact that if it can't go against a regular person, it wouldn't stand a chance against a superhero. I await my opponent's next argument
The show Spongebob Squarepants is dangerous for children.

The show Spongebob Squarepants is dangerous for children. I will now state my reasons why. 1.) The animation In Spongebob Squarepants, it is known that the animation moves so fast, that for some children can have seizures because of the animation. These moments are called meth moments and are called that basically because meth addicts see high speed visuals and that is what happens on Spongebob. 2.) It ruins children's' attention span In a study conducted at The University of Virginia, they chose 60 four year olds and randomly placed them in 3 groups. One group watched a 9 minute clip of Caillou, another watched a 9 minutre clip of Spongebob, and the last group drew pictures instead of watching any television. Immediateley after, the researchers tested the executive function on all the children in the groups.(The executive function is the abilitly to stay on task, not to become distracted and continue to be on task) It turns out, the children in the picture drawing group and the children who watched Caillou scored equally on the test; the children in the Spongebob group scored worse than the two. 3.) Diet The even more terrible part about watching Spongebob is that it causes children to eat junk food at a rapid rate then watching shows like Veggie Tales or Adventures in Odessey.
Law Abiding American Citizens Should Have The Right To Bear Arms.

"But if we continue to have the right to keep guns wouldnt that mean criminals will continue to kill... And isnt there other weapons that can be used?" My opponent seems to not realize that the fact that they are Criminals means they don't obey the law... If gun rights were taken away, they would continue to get guns. I live in the south as well and that is all the reason for me to stand up and fight for my rights as an American citizen. I hunt, with the gun banns in place in Washington DC i would find it hard to coon hunt (Racoon) because i use a hand gun.
Law Abiding American Citizens Should Have The Right To Bear Arms.

Again.. I agree with my opponent because i live in the south and we need to be protected by outer harms {{humans, animals}}.. And my dad also does own two of his own But if we continue to have the right to keep guns wouldnt that mean criminals will continue to kill... And isnt there other weapons that can be used? This 1 is hard because I DO have mixed feelings about it..
Law Abiding American Citizens Should Have The Right To Bear Arms.

The title says it all, will you accept my challenge? Subject : The second Amendment First off i have a question, If you make it against the law to own guns of any type wouldn't it mean that you would disarm people who mean no harm? The bad guys will stay bad, which means they will get guns. But the people who obey the law will be defenseless. Also, it is unconstitutional to take away gun rights according to the 2nd Amendment. If you take away gun right then you have messed with the bill of rights, and when you mess with the bill of rights, more government power will quickly follow. (Who do you think enforces bans?). Whats next Churches the govt. says you have to go to? (Separation of church and state)
Resolved: There are no messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus

I am sorry for the long wait. This is just a response to the Psalm 22 argument. Therefore, I will respond to Joel 2 in the next round. I will grant my opponent the final round to respond to JUST the Joel 2 repsponses just to be fair.Let us take a look now at Psalm 22 - He is believed to have quoted the entirety of the psalm while on the cross for all of the spectators that were mocking him. - All Jews knew the scripture and that it was messianic. They also saw that everything was fulfilled in Jesus. (Earliest Jewish Under what basis do you make this claim? Where's the evidence? The fact: Psalm 22 is referring to David, NOT JESUS! Psalm 22:16 says, "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. (KJV) Let's move on to Psalm 22:21 which says, "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."Both pierced and lion is the word "ka'ari," the most accurate translation, and proper one, is "Like a lion" did you notice how they translated the SAME WORD two different ways?Let's talk about the first verse for a moment. My God my God why hast thou forsaken me? Why would Jesus, who is suppose to be God feel forsaken by himself? If you go down a few verses God is not answering David's prayers. Don't you realise the implications by applying Psalm 22 to Jesus?Psalm 22:7, "But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people."Question: With the understanding that Jesus is G-d according to the Gospel of John and normative Christian theology then can you picture that Jesus, who is supposedly G-d in the flesh and the g-dman calling himself a worm? Is God a worm? By no means!Question: Is the Messiah a worm from the Rod of Jesse and the Righteous Branch and a worm from David?Isaiah 41:14, "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and ye men of Israel; I will help thee, saith the LORD, and thy redeemer, and the Holy One of Israel." (KJV)So, the Jewish people are likened to a worm, and the comparison here makes it MUCH MORE LIKELY taht David was writing about the plight of the Jew. For some reason, the Christians find it hard to believe that the Psalmist would be writing about his own people. Now let me ask you...how much faith should we have in our Christian Bibles? Does it not stand to reason that Isaiah was right when he said: "Whom shall one teach knowledge? And whom shall one make to understand the message? Them that are weaned from the milk, them that are drawn from teh breasts? For it is precept by precept, precept by precept, line by line, line by line; here a little, there a little." ConclusionI have shown how Psalm 22 was purposly mistranslated and how it referrs to David's own life and NOT Jesus. Again, I will respond to Joel 2 later. Thank you and I await your response.
Resolved: There are no messianic prophecies that can be attributed to Jesus

Rules and Debating Procedure Round 1 Con must present any prophecies you claim is a proof. Please label them for clarity of response (prophecy A, B, C, etc). Round 2 I will respond to the prophecy and show how they were forged, do not exist, or are not true prophecies at all. Con may respond in round 2 either with challenging my response, or presenting new prophecies (or both). Round 3 I will respond to his challenges or new contradictions. Con may only respond to my answers. Round 4 I will respond to his challenges. In the close of round 4 Con may not present new arguments or respond to my arguments. The purpose of this is to give an even round. A note about Burden of Proof This debate does not have burden of proof in the way normal debates do. My burden is to rebut the common "proof" texts and my opponent must present them. Limitation of Space Since it takes more space to answer a prophecy, I am limiting my opponent to 3 prophecies. If you wish to add a prophecy, you will need to drop a prophecy
cause and effect is logic

Here i will give you an example if my arguments did not stir anything. If you were to be on the top of a cliff ready to jump in a crystal clear water (call it a lake) with your friend. Dive in completely not supported by anything. You are not sure how deep the lake is but your friend is not able to touch the bottom of the lake where you will jump. Cause = Jump into the lake Effect = Die or tell a story Logic = determine and weight in the effects. Evidence : The lake is deep enough that you will not be able to touch the bottom. See what happened there? The evidence has given logic to the effect which in turn has removed the uncertainty of death. In this sense cause and effect=logic is triggered by evidence. Now lets cover the cause and effect does not equal logic. Cause: debate between you and me Effect: me or you are the winner Logic: it cannot be determined since the statements that i provide might not be logical (ex. i could have written in all of the rounds just ajckjasjdajkscajksd) The cause of me debating you and the effect being a winner does not result in logic due to there not being any on my side. Hope it makes sense
cause and effect is logic

Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity Pro, The reason why i say that not everything that has a cause and effect is logical is due to the uncertainty and lack of evidence (mostly based on faith). Take for example the magnet. You cannot know for sure which side is which (N or S) without testing it or creating a measurement/observation correct? So continuing on this path if we were to take into consideration the logic of the cause and effect it is not always dictated by the 2 variables. More "things" have to be determined in order for a cause and effect to become logical. You have given the example of "without positive there can be no negative" But we know of this due to what? Due to us eliminating the uncertainty between the 2. The reason why we know that we know that the stud of a battery marked with red is the + is due to precautions that were created in order for personnel to properly operate the device. So to summarize this short round. cause+effect does not always result in logic due to lack of evidence.
cause and effect is logic

cause+effect does not always result logic. Ex. [1] Placebo Effect (Cause = You are sick you take a pill (you are given this pill by the pharmacist but instead its a sugar pill)) (Effect = You are no longer sick) [2] Reason why liquid water existed in the past. The atmosphere did not have the temperature ranges that it does now but yet life was still able to sustain itself. [2] Why magnets have a N and S pole. logic+experience of it=reason The examples above contradict this statement also. You cannot have a reason due to the uncertainty of the event. For example you cannot know for sure the reason why a magnet (fridge magnet) has a N and S pole (other than for it to stick to the fridge) reason+intent=morality This one might not even apply here... [1] http://www.cracked.com... [2] http://topinfopost.com...
Roger Federer is the greatest athlete of all time.

You can chose any athlete you want to compare to Federer. I just have a few rules. 1. Be respectful. 2. This is fun debate. Because I like to argue :D 3. We can't say anything negative about the other persons athlete. For example, your athlete sucks, etc. We can however compare each others athletess. For example federer is more fun to watch than your athlete, etc. Federer dominated tennis for several years. He is definitely the most dominant athlete of all time I think that makes him the best athlete of all time.
Roger Federer is the greatest athlete of all time.

Federer is an astounding athlete, but he has neither the strength, speed or skill that Jackson has, and that's only in one sport. The fact that Jackson was able to continue his baseball career despite a replaced hip (and picked up a semi-pro sport) is something out of this world. Again, I reiterate Jackson was called ESPN's greatest athlete of all time. And like I said before, even though Jackson doesn't have the amount of awards Federer does, this is mostly because tennis is a completely different sport and no other sport is even comparable. I guess vote for whoever made the better argument.
Roger Federer is the greatest athlete of all time.

This is the rest of my previous round's argument from the comments. I'll post it here while my opponent gets back (hopefully)."They are a lot longer matches you don't spend half of it on the sidelines and conditions are generally harsher..." Perhaps endurance was the wrong word. In tennis, you are not regularly tackled and slammed to the ground or run headfirst into a person running headfirst into you. Maybe the running isn't consistent like in tennis, but those things make up for it. In football, they train in the 30 C temps, and finish their season when it is snowing and hailing, and every weather pattern in between. A tennis match will be canceled due to rain. (1) To put it bluntly, tennis conditions are child's play compared to football. "But Federer made the finals of Wimbledon... when he had mono" "Especially in adolescents and young adults, the disease is characterized by fever, sore throat and fatigue". This doesn't sound nearly as bad as a fake hip. Point dismissed. As for the bad back and never canceling due to injury (good on him, though, that's impressive), you have to agree that the injuries faced when playing football are much more severe than those in tennis. I hardly think that's an opinion thing. As for all of the awards, good on Federer. I'll admit that Jackson doesn't have anywhere near that many. But you have to understand that tennis isn't the same sport as football by a long-shot. There are dozens of tournaments, championships and nitpicky records of consecutive appearances in the quarters and series of victories on grass and hardcourt... this is unnecessarily finicky. Not a single football, basketball, soccer, hockey, whatever player has that many records because the games are not played similarly at all or rank such unneeded records. No one will ever win an award for being the first shortstop to get three outs four years in a row at home, because no one feels that it's necessary. This isn't to demean the awards... many of them are impressive... but there are really no comparisons to any other sport, and thus can't be compared.
Roger Federer is the greatest athlete of all time.

I hate these 24-hour limit debates. I'll post as much as I can and comment the rest for this round, if that is alright by my opponent. If not, I understand, and I will post the rest in the next round."Different sports players have different life spans for instance tennis players only play till their early thirties many baseball players play till there thirties tennis is a much harder sport physically and that's why many guys who get to that age are not able to compete with the younger guys." I promise you, tennis player's do not spend the rest of their retirement in pain. Over 90% of retired NFL players face daily aches and pains (1). Football players face the hardest workouts and endure countless tackles over their career, even NFL medical standards are sub-par according to physicians (2). "Roger was part of the Swiss junior national football team before he had to give it up to focus soley on tennis."Yeah, middle-school football is a tad less difficult than college-level. (3). He could not play football nowadays. He does not have the build or the strength today. His body structure could not handle the strain of the tackles.1. http://www.washingtonpost.com...2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Roger Federer is the greatest athlete of all time.

Interesting choice he was a little before my time but I do know a bit about Bo. It's pretty cool that he was good enough to be pro in both football and baseball, while managing both at the same time I wonder if anyone would be able to do that it today's sports world. Great all round athlete. Pretty respectable career. However when you are talking about Roger Federer everyone including Bo Jackson pail in comparison To be the greatest athlete ever you at least have to be the best in your respective sport in these two lists I found, Bo Jackson wasn't even in the top ten in baseball of football. http://sports.espn.go.com... http://stoopsports.com... Roger Federer is hands down the best tennis player of all time because he has more grand slams (17) than anyone else. Which is the stat that is usually used to measure the best of all time in tennis. Also he dominated in the best era of players tennis has ever had competing with the likes of fellow greats who will go on to be considered some of the best athletes of all time like Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic and depending on how many more slams he gets by the end of his career Andy Murray. Roger Federer is definitely the best tennis player ever and in my humble opinion the greatest athlete of all time. I Also want to cite tomorrow's final with Del Potro. Watch it, You will see that his play is awe-inspiring. Also keep in mind Roger is 32 and most players best years are well in the past at his age. He isn't as good as he used to be but he's still pretty amazing.
The Two Party System is Best for America

There are some things that I will need to correct for the young lad here. He says that "There are many different ideologies that are possible that are not the ideologies of the GOP and DNC." Well, you are wrong. You see, the GOP and the DNC were built on different principles and ideologies. In order to know which party you have the same ideologies as, you must first look at the Basic issues like Abortion, Gay Marriage, the Economy, Education, etc. In the House, the Senate, even the White House, the party allows you to differentiate in a bill. Example, the Democrats and the Republicans supported the Keystone Pipeline XL, but President Obama, who is a Democrat, vetoed the bill. The Political Party does not pursue you because of issues that aren't major, but the ones that the party is built upon. "The GOP and the DNC are too similar" It's very funny that you would say that. Yes, every party is the same in some way, but like I said earlier, what makes a political party differ is the principles that they were built upon. "Our founding fathers said so" You are right, the founding fathers warned us, but they did not do anything to prevent it. Is it in the Consitution? No. Did they make a law or Amendment to prevent us from doing so? No. The founding fathers would have done something to prevent this if they thought of it to be a bad thing, but they didn't. Why? Because they know for a fact that they wanted this, but couldn't support it because of the times they were in. Abraham Lincoln found the Republican Party. His time and President Adams times changed. Now, Lincoln can actually support and create a political party in which Adams couldn't.