BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I would beat you in a Pokemon battle.

Kyogre ability: Drizzle item: Wave Incense -Sheer Cold -Aqua Ring -Ice Beam -Water Spout Blissey ability: Natural Cure item: Silk Scarf -Softboiled -Psycic -Sing -Round Kyerum(fused with Reshiram) ability: TurboBlaze item: Icycle plate -Freeze Burn -Ice Beam -Dragon Pulse -Fly Alakazam ability: i forgot... item: Odd Incense -Psycic -Dazzling Gleam -Calm Mind -Trick Room Bannete forgot his ability... item: Bannetite -Toxic -Shadow Sneak -Will o Wisp -Shadow Punch Arceus ability: MultiPlate(i think that's what it's called) item: Spooky Plate -Judgement -Energy Ball -Perish Song -Toxic 5 reasons why I would win... 1.All of my pokemon are level 100. 2.My Kyerum in fused with Reshiram, yours isn't fused with anything. 3.Even if we only have one pokemon left each, I always send out Arceus last, so, the Perish Song... a battle will result in a tie or loss for you. 4. your team is mostly Water and Dragon, so Kyerum and Arceus can easily deal with these 5.Blissey can put an enemy to sleep, or Bannete/Arceus can poison an enemy, even if you effect Blissey with something, Blissey has natural cure. If Blissey and Kyogre were out, Blissey could put the enemy to sleep while Kyogre restores HP with Aqua Ring. Obviously, I would want to put the one that's most effective on Kyogre to sleep, so that would be Simisage or Kyerum. But, if you have both in, I could send out Bannete/Arceus to poison them, and Simisage would take massive damage to it, since Poison is super effective against grass. I await my opponent's rebuttals.
I would beat you in a Pokemon battle.

Thank you for accepting my challenge. Here are my Pokemon: 1. Zekrom LVL 87 Ability(ies): Teravolt Moves: Fly Psychic Dragon Breath Fusion Bolt 2. Seismitoad LVL 83 Ability(ies): Poison touch, Swift Swim, and Water Absorb Moves: Poison Jab Surf Brick Break Rock Tomb 3. Swanna LVL 93 Ability(ies): Big Pecks, Keen Eye, a and Hydration. Moves: Bubble beam Fly Dive Air Slash 4. Volcarona LVL 76 Ability: Flame Body Moves: Flamethrower Bug Dance Bug Buzz Silver Wind 5. Kyurem LVL 97 Ability: Pressure Moves: Outrage Glaciate Slash Icy Wind 6. Simisage LVL 68 Ability: Gluttony Moves: Vine Whip Leech Seed Dig Double kick Why I would win: 1. I could send out Simisage and Seismitoad together and use Simisage's Leech Seed on one of your Pokemon, but first I would use logic to figure out which Pokemon you would attack Simisage with and attack it with Seismitoad. If I inferred that you would use them both to attack Simisage, then I could simply use Surf to damage them both. It would also damage Simisage, but not badly since he is a Grass-Type. If your water-resistant Pokemon was still alive, it wouldn't be for long because of Simisage's Leech Seed. 2. My Zekrom's Fusion Bolt has taken out Elite Four Pokemon that were not even Flying or Water types. 3. My Kyurem can take out three Pokemon in a row a lot of times with just one command to use Outrage. 4. My Seismitoad has Poison Jab for dealing with Grass-Type Pokrmon. 5. My Simisage can use Dig to deal with Fire and Electric-Types.
I would beat you in a Pokemon battle.

I would like to debate this.Rules:1. The battle must be described as if neither of us knew anything about the other's Pokemon or strategies.2. No items except those held by Pokemon.3. Con is allowed to use mega-evolutions if he wishes.Debate Structure:R1: Acceptance onlyR2: Both Pro and Con describe their Pokemon teams and each give 5 reasons why they would win.R3-4: RebuttalsR5: Rebuttals, then conclusions. I will allow Con to choose whether it is a single, double, or triple battle.
Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

I apologize for the delay. I began writing this response earlier, and forgot to finish. And, may I add, thank you for your kind attitude, willingness to debate, and good sportsmanship. As to your first question, as I stated in the title and the plan, this would be for federal offenders. These offenders are low level, non-violent, first time offenders, and as such are deserving of a second chance. The fact is, that the safety valve was first implemented, to give these offenders a second chance, however, the current mindset is to be "tough on crime" not "Smart on crime". It is my position that these first time, low level, non-violent federal safety valve offenders, deserve a real second chance. As to your second question, as I stated in the plan, I am advocating the implementation of drug rehabilitation and job training (alternative sentencing) for these low level, non-violent, first time offenders; because these programs have been proven to do better than prison at rehabilitating these prisoners and that they cost less; leading us to the logical conclusion that these programs are cost effective. As to your third question, yes. The offenders who would, given the status quo's policy, would receive this failure we call a prison sentence for the entirety of their sentence, which would inevitably increase the likelihood of their re-arrest and cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars; instead, with our plan they will receive an alternative sentence that quickly and efficiently addresses the root of the problem. And it is because this plan would give federal offenders who have been ruled to deserve a second chance, a real second chance, because this plan would save nearly a billion dollars every year by implementing less expensive programs, and because this plan would be more effective in reducing crime, that I advocate this plan, and why I request you vote affirmative at the end of today's debate round. Thank you.
Certain Federal Offenders Should Receive Alternative Sentencing

This sounds like a very interesting topic, so I can't wait to debate it. Before we begin, I have a few questions. 1. Are you advocating this idea at a state or federal level? 2. Also, are you advocating alternative sentencing AND the Dallas system?3. Will offenders qualifying for your program receive alternative sentencing for the entirety of their sentence? Best of Luck! -Sheldon
Secrecy of Area 51 should be told

"I thought this was a free country"AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH, Yeahhhh, it really isnt. There are tons of stuff you arent allowed to do and stuff you arent allowed to know about. America isnt even the freest country in the world anymore, we're like 810th. "if we can't than why is it so secretive is there aliens or you found the body of Jesus."Area 51 is the the US governments testing airbase where they test new aircraft in secrecy. Stealth bombers and stealth fighters were tested in Area 51, the stealth helicopters used to get Osama were tested in area 51, and the weapons that will patrol the skies in the future will also be tested there. There arent aliens or the body of Jesus there, thats just stupid. "Also yes that the government should tell all about Area 51 or no they should not tell us about Area 51."I dont even know what youre trying to say anymore but the US shouldnt tell us about everything they are testing in Area 51 because that is where state of the art weapons are being tested. To tell us what is in there is to compromise the security of the nation.
Secrecy of Area 51 should be told

It is not fair that in the United States we can't know what is happening like the government has Area 51 as such a secret that we can't know what it is. I thought this was a free country can't we know what is happening in our country because if we can't than why is it so secretive is there aliens or you found the body of Jesus. Can everyone decide or vote on the government telling us about area51 or for they not to tell us. I'm going against the government that they should tell us about Area 51. Also yes that the government should tell all about Area 51 or no they should not tell us about Area 51.
People are too hard on illegal immigrants.

Before I go into my arguments, let me be clear that anyone who is coming to the US for the simple reason of doing crime are not who I am referring to. I am referring to the people who comer here to 'start over', or to get away from poverty. I don't believe you understood me correctly. I don't need an explanation on WHY they have a hard time finding jobs, I am saying that they SHOULD be hired.There are social media posts that deny immigrants the right to marry here, the right to have a drivers' license, school, etc.I say again, we as Americans are immigrants. Formerly illegal ones at that. We illegally seceded from Britain, which started the American Revolution.What about the organizations who, in the name of the Republican party, complain about the jobs being given to illegal immigrants when, just as your statistics say, most of them are forced to join crime. 37$ of all Americans are not white, meaning that they have come here at some point in history, and I'm sure some illegal.What about blacks? During the time of slavery, blacks illegally entered the north and yet were accepted unless brought before the supreme court. With so many things being accepted in today's society, illegal immigrants should be too. Anyone who is in the situation that many people in Mexico are being born into would want to escape. Therefore, we shouldn't morally be able to shun them from society.
People are too hard on illegal immigrants.

1: You can say that, but that doesn't make it true. If they came here, and payed the money to become a citizen, that would not have happened. "I'll just say this. Drug dealing is a quick way to make a LOT of money. The problem is...it is illegal. For good reason. Let me back up. Illegal immigrancy is illegal for NO reason. Anyone who is here on behalf of a drug cartel is breaking the law in a different way. They can be arrested for being part of a drug cartel, not immigrating. " Like stated in my argument. It is illegal. If millions of people flooded into our nation, we would hurt economically. I am all for making it easier to immigrate legally. However, when people are here illegal they pose a danger to society. there are several reasons pecan pie immigration, without paying the fee, is illegal. as shown here: http://www.independent.org... "The majority of gang members are gang members because they are out of options. That or they are ignorant enough to kill people in the name of "West Coast Represent!". Either way, I say again, immigrants would not join gangs if they had more job options! No one hires them because it is illegal! If it were not illegal, then there would not be a problem and the immigrant would be hired based on their capability to do the job, not their citizenship." next, They cannot get jobs, because they are illegally here. If they were here legally, than a couple more jobs would be available. And also, to say they wouldn't join gangs is ignorant. my point is that a lot of the time gangs are brought from Mexica to the US, often which are associated with drug cartels. Even if they were granted legal citizenships, there are a lot of Americans who just join gangs because they are tight on money. Therefore, your argument does not pertain to the issue because it is not unique to immigrants. "Even still, most people immigrate to the US so they can have opportunity. Who are we to rip that away from them because a few of them join a gang? Nationality has nothing to do with crime rate. " We are Americans. The people who are currently residing in America. And of course, I never said it did! However, people faced in this situation often use gangs to get across the border. "peaking of crime, the United States is NUMERO UNO when it comes to incarcerated citizens! It's not like we're pure and must keep all crime out. So maybe if we allowed them all in, then people who have all the money (criminals) won't be the only ones to come in." Also, you may or may not be familiar with this issue, so I'll enlighten you. America, a while ago adopted the phrase, "tough on crime". This originally was used as code for, "black people will be treated unfairly", and this still has truth today, as the majority of prisons have a mainly black populous. Also, many of these African Americans do commit crimes, but it's because of the unfair advantage that they were BORN into. Also I'd like to point out that criminals do not own "all the money", otherwise the majority of them would stop committing crime, and seek citizenship. Thank you.
People are too hard on illegal immigrants.

It is my pleasure!In response to the video, they would not have been in a high speed chase if they were accepted and given the job opportunities you and I are. "Next, drug cartels are given an all-access pass to America."I'll just say this. Drug dealing is a quick way to make a LOT of money. The problem is...it is illegal. For good reason. Let me back up. Illegal immigrancy is illegal for NO reason. Anyone who is here on behalf of a drug cartel is breaking the law in a different way. They can be arrested for being part of a drug cartel, not immigrating. The majority of gang members are gang members because they are out of options. That or they are ignorant enough to kill people in the name of "West Coast Represent!". Either way, I say again, immigrants would not join gangs if they had more job options! No one hires them because it is illegal! If it were not illegal, then there would not be a problem and the immigrant would be hired based on their capability to do the job, not their citizenship.Even still, most people immigrate to the US so they can have opportunity. Who are we to rip that away from them because a few of them join a gang? Nationality has nothing to do with crime rate. Speaking of crime, the United States is NUMERO UNO when it comes to incarcerated citizens! It's not like we're pure and must keep all crime out. So maybe if we allowed them all in, then people who have all the money (criminals) won't be the only ones to come in.Thanks :)
People are too hard on illegal immigrants.

Hello, and thanks for starting this debate! Ill start off with a couple basic points. Point A. As shown here, http://www.breitbart.com..., there are issues when illegal immigrants come over that pose a threat to our society. Point B. Next, drug cartels are given an all-access pass to America. Through loop holes, drug cartels come here to break the law. Point C.Illegal immigrants are also prone to gangs. Gangs, as we all know, are never a good thing. Later in the debate, I will go deeper into these points! Thanks!
People are too hard on illegal immigrants.

There are many social media posts that are very anti-immigrant when it comes to the United States. I am very against this for reasons that will be listed in this argument.We are all immigrants. No matter how you look at it, the British immigrated here, the Spanish, Portuguese, even the Native Americans. The idea that someone, in an attempt to get away from a lesser country, should not be allowed to try to have a better life is asinine. Please feel free to argue in your first post. :)
Lower The Drinking Age

It looks like CountryLover has wisely decided to avoid this debate because I think he was losing on it big time. I'll say a few things and then let it speak for itself 1. As a voter, you need to vote on what was said in the debate, not what you think personally. CL agreed implicitly that people would die if we lower the drinking age. Against this argument you have his one and only argument -- the drinking age is not consistent. He just repeats this over and over and fails to even explain why consistency is important. 2.I'm the only one with any data to back me up. All of his arguments are just stuff he made up. So yeah, vote for me. While the topic is complicated the debate is an easy decision.
Lower The Drinking Age

I see one huge flaw with your argument: you have not actually defended that the drinking age should be lowered, you have only defended that it should be equal to the legal age for other activities (you mention consensual sex for example). It is open to me to argue that everything should be raised to 21 (or 25 since that's when brain development stops). So, at no point have you actually defended your position on the topic, so you lose automatically. But, chances are you're not going to buy that argument, so I can include some more. First, your one and only argument is that our drinking age is not consistent with other policies. Yet, you give no reason why consistency is more important than the lives that would be lost if we changed the drinking age. What's so important about consistency? Second, you're wrong to allege that promiscuous sex is worse than binge drinking. In both cases, nothing bad happens if you do everything right -- in sex, if you use contraception, no one gets pregnant, in drinking, if you don't drive and have someone sober, you won't do anything two stupid. However, drinking has the unique potential impact of causing death or serious injury to someone who did not consent to the activity. If you drink and drive or just become belligerent while drunk you can harm a completely innocent bystander whereas with sex, the immediate action can only harm those who consent to the activity. Look, you have not refuted my evidence which indicates that PEOPLE WILL DIE if we lower the drinking age. Kids wanting to get buzzed at an earlier age is a truly awful reason to take an action that will kill people.
Lower The Drinking Age

there are risk in anything we do...18 is either an adult age or it aint...if 18 was to young for a beer...then why dont they just change the adult age to 21?.....they can raise the age to 30 for all I care...but I see no sence in making the drinking age 21 whil teens are allowed to have sex...just in case you did not realize..there is a risk teens take when having sex...if a teen is allowed to have sex then a 18 year old should be able to drink.....you say that statistics show that bad can come out of it?...well if that was the case then there are plenty bads that comes from teen pregnancys....id rather find out my 14 year old son or daughter snuck some beers or got a buzz...then to find out that they was having sex.....sex leads to more trouble then drinking...all that sleeping around does is create unwanted pregnancys...to where peaple end up getting abortions...getting a buzz might make someone have a hangover to where they might not want to drink much again
Lower The Drinking Age

Alcohol's ability to render individuals cognitively incapable poses a unique challenge for lawmakers that make comparisons to other legal statues irrelevant. When a person drinks, they must take precaution about means of transportation home, actions that they want to partake in etc. BEFORE they decide to drink which requires an extreme degree of foresight. Yes, people are adults at 18, but no one acts like an adult while drunk. Practically, lowering the drinking age would be a horrible decision. Here's some facts 1. State motor vehicle fatality data from the 48 continental states found that lowering the MLPA for beer from 21 to 18 during the 1970s resulted in an 11% increase in fatalities among this age group. 2. An Arizona Department of Public Safety report found that fatal accidents increased over 25% while traffic fatalities increased more than 35% after the state MLPA was lowered from 21 to 19. 3. The younger a person begins using alcohol, the greater the chance of developing alcohol dependence or abuse some time in their life. Of those who begin drinking at age-18, 16.6% subsequently are classified with alcohol dependence and 7.8% with alcohol abuse. If a person waits until age-21 before taking their first drink, these risks decrease by over 60%. (all found here: http://www.cspinet.org...) We have tried lowering the drinking age and people die. There's no reason why this time would be any different.
Lower The Drinking Age

I say lower the drinking age....why not?...society tells peaple that there adults at 18...and at 18 you can pretty much do anything...so why not be able to drink a beer?...Peaple act like it will ruin the kids life if he/she was to be legally ably to frink at 18...I say they cant use that as an exuse cause if a person is going to become an alchoholic they would be one anyway whatever the drinking age is...and plus...I dont see how 2 13 your olds are legally allowed to have sex but 2 18 year olds who drive,out of school,"ARE ADULT" can't open a beer and be able to drink it?...there are WAY to many teen pregnancys to start preaching about 2 "adults" drinking beer..so if teens are allowed to sleep with each other....then adults should be allowed to buy alcholhol
People should opt to use "they" on official documents rather than "he or she"

I'm willing to do this (despite its simplicity) on the terms that the rule on keeping it secular is revoked. You are limiting the argument to one viewpoint, and that viewpoint just so happens to favor your position, and puts a damper on mine. While I do intend to bring up religion, it is not my only argument, and actually isn't even my flagship argument. It is just bad practice to try and control what viewpoint we debate with, especially when it benefits you.
People should opt to use "they" on official documents rather than "he or she"

Rules: -No trolling -Keep it secular -No ad hominem Round one: opening statement 2-3: argument 4: conclusion With that out of the way, my introduction: On many documents, such as legal forms, or even things as simple as classroom worksheets, the phrase "he or she" or its variants are used when referring to a person of unknown gender. This is relatively modern, compared to the use of universal "he". However, then people realised not everyone identifies as "he". The problem with this is that not everyone is a "he or she", though. Because of this and other reasons, people should opt for the use of "they" instead of "he or she" on official or professional documents.
Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified

Voters, since my opponent didn't answer my question, I'll take the silence as yes for the first question. Also, I never agreed changing the resolution as "civil disobedience in a democracy is 51% justified." My opponent should prove that civil disobedience in a democracy is always not morally justified. Now, I'll tell you why I won this debate. So, the most important thing when you live is justice. Think about a world without Justice. People will be unfair and unreasonable. This will make authoritarianism. Without civil disobedience as I said in my rounds before, nobody can check if government is going to have authoritarian or not. Giving people voice will block this. Voters, lets say that you are walking in the street and across the street, a kid is attacked by lots of people. The problem is that the traffic light is so far and police are so slow to help you. Are you going to help the kid by jay walking? Of course you should or you are inhuman and unjust. You can metaphor this as civil disobedience. This is because civil disobedience is non violent action with a moral reason. Now you notice that civil disobedience is a way to achieve justice. Think about it. Is giving people a voice is a horrible and a bad thing? NO!!!!! We should respect people's conscience to achieve justice which was my criteria. A world which my opponent is trying to make is a world that people ignores minority. Also, lets think about this point too. Is something legal is always something that is moral? If you say yes, it means that slavery was a moral thing too. This means that something that is legal is not something that is moral. We shouldn't follow a government that is trying to take people's human right, and this means that civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. Voters, because of these reason, I ask you to affirm. Thank you for debating. I hope we debate again!