BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This house asserts that Pokemon sends mixed messages about what "friendship" is.

I agree. The moves have the ability to kill a real person. I'm sure most of us have learned about this from numerous youtubers. http://www.youtube.com.... But I'm sure that the attacks aren't meant to harm or kill anyone. Argument 1: How do we know that the pokemon aren't strong enough to withstand the attack. The pokedex in the show doesn't tell you that like it does in the games. And it's a show. Kids aren't looking for what's physically possible. It's an anime. Those things are famous for impossible things possible, but that's for another debate. Argument 2: Pokemon are more used to send more random and sexual messages than violent. (Beneath this, there will be a link to some examples). While the show itself teaches kids to stay true to your friends. For instance- when Ash first got Pikachu, Pikachu didn't like him at all, but when Ash almost lost his life protecting him, he started to like him more. That message taught kids that a good friend would always be there to protect you. Another example would be team rocket itself. If my opponent thought about it, he/she would realize that their actually good. They're used to teach the kids that stealing is wrong, and that you should be careful around strangers. I'm not sensing any danger in that. http://www.dorkly.com....
This house asserts that Pokemon sends mixed messages about what "friendship" is.

Thank you for accepting. I'm a guy BTW. MESSAGE #1: A "Friend's" Pain for Empty "Achievement."The trainers force their pokemon into a lot of fighting, and yet identify these creatures as their "friends." And what for? To get into the "Pokemon league." Why? For fame and glory. If you really pay attention to what happens during most pokemon battles and really think, you'll notice a lot of blows that would pretty much seriously injure kill a real person. After some thought, I wondered how the Pokemon were surviving all that punishment, particularly electric type moves and fire-type moves that have a chance of burning the target. As an example, we see Pikachu using electric-type moves... a lot. The above move Pikachu is using is Volt Tackle, a move where the user charges at its target surrounded by electricity. Electricity actually kills people. But it never actually kills the Pokemon. They either get seriously hurt or simply "faint." Also, given the speed at which Pikachu charges, would that not kill you without the electricity? As for burning fire-type moves... The above move is flamethrower, a move that can actually burn a pokemon. It is a large cloud of fire tht engulfs the target. That would certainly kill a person. CA1: Pokemon is teaching kids that it is possible to survive a fast tackle that carries electricity AND being hit by a constant stream of fire... and being burned for an extended period of time. MESSAGE #2: Keeping Pokemon AliveIn season 1, episode 58, "Volcanic Panic," Ash calls Pikachu back because if not, Pikachu would have fallen into the lava and died. In fact, we never see actual deaths, even though pokemon moves are apparently lethal in real life.CA2:Pokemon is sending the message that you should keep your friends out of mortal danger but still make them do things that would be lethal in real life.Conflict between the two messages:Pokemon are identified as "friends" of their trainers. It is contradictory to teach someone to keep a friend out of mortal danger, but force them to perform feats that PUT them in mortal danger. Your turn.
Abortion

Con the debater, Seems not to understand the concept of debating. And Con the scientist still hasn't explained to me what life is. And Con the ultimately righteous one, Does not explain why they can be selectively moral and yet deny this option to others. And Con seems to have overlooked the fact that I have agreed, That foetal life by association is obviously human life. As it would clearly be foolish to suggest otherwise. And wealthy married woman are just as likely to seek an abortion as poorer unmarried women. Con seems to be not only selectively moral, But also discriminatory towards a certain sector of society, Who for some reason offend Con's selective sensibilities. And a 13 week old foetal mass looks like a 13 week old foetal mass. Con is pointing out the obvious again. And if a 13 week old foetal mass were not connected to the maternal mass it would die anyway. And Con's points still stand and my points still stand. And I do not make accusations, I simply attempt to debate. But it seems that Con does not really wish to debate. Con seems to think that they, For some unexplained reason are righteous beyond questioning and that debate is designed exclusively for them to proclaim their hypocritical sensibilities. Realistically: In an already overcrowded world the loss of a foetus is of no consequence. It is only of consequence to those that care to think about it too much. And those that care to think about it too much are usually those most detached from the mental trauma and social burdens of unwanted pregnancy. And one person will suffer the mental trauma of abortion and a handful of overzealous hypocrites will pontificate about it. And the other 7. 7 billion will carry on as if nothing has happened. Such is the reality of the human condition. And Universal Reality exceeds all human frailty anyway.
Abortion

As I expected. Typically selective morals and double standards of the anti-abortionist. I will kill what I like and who I like, When I like, As long as it suits me to do so. But abortion is always unacceptable because that suits me too. But actually. Killing pregnant women as a consequence of the U. S lead war on terror is acceptable, Because that also suits me too. And the vegan/vegetarian question will not be taken seriously only by those that would rather ignore it. Life is: Life is what separates everything that is organic from everything that is not and who is Pro or anybody else for that matter to judge that human life is any different to any other life. Does Pro know what life actually is. How does Pro differentiate between the spark of life found in their cells and that which occurs within a bacterial cell? And who is to say that life on Earth is anything more than an inconsequential meaningless chance event, Anyway? And humans are obviously and instinctively biased in favour of themselves, Just as every other species is. A baby is a baby and a foetus is a foetus. A baby has experienced consciousness whereas a foetus has not. A baby responds consciously to it's surroundings whereas a foetus responds instinctively. As such a foetus does not have a conscious awareness of it's existence and therefore also has no awareness of human conceptualities such as quality of life or choice or innocence etc etc. Pro's argument is simply emotion and concept based. They have their own selectively stylised view of the world which they expect everyone else to subscribe to. They select emotive words and stylised foetal images and disregard the reality of the human condition whenever it suits them to do so. And for people like Pro: Murder is murder when it suits them to be so and the justifiable taking of human life is justifiable when it suits them to be so. They are selectively moral and have double standards and therefore cannot be considered righteous. Because they cannot decide if there is a difference between right and wrong. And civilian deaths are only for the greater good of the self righteous hypocrites. AND ONE MANS INCONVENIENCE IS ANOTHER WOMANS NECESSITY. And who is Pro to deny her that choice.
Abortion

OoooKaaay. So you respond by asking me if I am vegan or I support the war on terror. I am not vegan and I do support the war on terror, But not that much. That's a different topic anyway. To start, I just want to point out that the although there are many physical differences between the baby and the fetus, (there are less than you think, Just look up a picture of a 13-week fetus) the fetus is scientifically considered human life, And consequently is of the same moral value as the baby. The vegan/vegetarian question is a logical fallacy that would not stand a second in a actual debate and is not taken seriously anywhere. Pro-lifers stand for HUMAN life. My belief is that it is a law of nature for humans to eat animals and for animals to eat other animals and plants. I think that humans are of more value than animals, And everyone can agree on that. We should not disrupt the structure of nature. Also, We kill animals to eat food, We have no purpose other than our own convenience for the killing of an unborn child. Your second question is more interesting. The War on Terror is what needs to be done. Terrorism is a HUGE problem. I am completely aware that many innocent people are dying at the hands of the US, And I do think that minimizing civilian deaths should be a top priority for our military forces across the world. However, The taking of human life is required in order to save greater populations of human life and stop this evil of terrorism once and for all. We have to make sacrifices if we want to do something like this. Nothing as significant as stopping terrorism comes without sacrifice. The civilian deaths are for the greater good, And abortion of human life is not. YOUR CONVENIENCE IS NOT WORTH MORE THAN SOMEBODY ELSE'S LIFE. Back to you:
Abortion

Firstly there is a clear distinction to be made between a baby and a foetus. And no rationally minded person would ever advocate the killing of a baby. Murder is a term that is relevant to legislation. Therefore if a society legislates in favour of conditional abortion, Then in this instance abortion cannot be regarded as murder. A personal dislike of abortion is simply a personal dislike of abortion. As I always point out in abortion debates, Anti abortionists always tend to display selective morality in their regard for life. So answer me these two questions: 1) Are you a vegetarian or a vegan. 2) Do you support the U. S. Lead, "war on terror" and therefore also justify the consequent deaths of innocent civilians as well as political opponents. Innocent civilians which includes many hundreds of children and babies. If you are genuinely "pro life" then it is incumbent upon you to answer Yes to the first question and No to the second. As we have five rounds to debate I will not expand my argument any further for now. But will leave you to consider your response to these two issues.
Abortion

I believe abortion is wrong, As I have already stated. You believe that freedom of thought is unconditional, And so do I. The self-righteousness prevalent in our society will be our downfall. People are and should be allowed to think whatever they want. WHO AM I to judge THEM when I have thoughts of hate every day? Indeed, You make a great point. People focus on other people's wrongdoings to distract them from their own. Everyone should be allowed to have their own opinions on abortion and speak them as well. Taken into practice though, Is COMPLETELY different. You very well know that the taking of an innocent life is never justified. Everyone believes that enforcement of justice is needed when an innocent life is taken. The baby has done nothing wrong. So the debate comes down to whether the baby is a human life. Science says so. Human life begins at conception. This is a fact, Not a belief. Not debatable. If so, Killing this is nothing less than murder. Your turn:
Abortion

My opponent has taken the Con side of the debate. Which in effect means that they believe abortion is right. So because I am not sure of what they actually believe to be right or wrong, I will adopt a more philosophical approach. Whatever one might assume to believe. Is what it Is. An independently assimilated concept that does does not need to be subjected to external scrutiny. Fortunately for the time being at least, Freedom of thought is unconditional. Despite what one might choose to believe, Realistically there is no greater authority to judge human thoughts or actions. Therefore at best, Right and wrong are only collective human decisions that may or may not be legislatively applied to a society as a whole. We may or may not agree with social legislation. But it is incumbent upon us to uphold the law in order to maintain a respectable level of social stability.
The theory of Evolution

Beggining?Evolution isn't supposed to provide a beggining and therefore is not valid? That literally makes no sense only due to your fallacied creation logic. Creationism says that everything was just simply created in the beggining, it assumed that nothing had changed over time. Scientific reasoning proves things change over time in various processes. Evolution is one of these changes to explain the origin of species. One theory providing a beggining for everything would only mean that the Universe is static, nothing changes. We know this is not true and observations have proven things change over time. The Earth was a lifeless rock of lava flowing on it's surface and meteors always impacting it during it's creation. However, we can see that clearly this is no longer the case.MutationsIt's true that mutations usually are random by chance, however natural selection is what drives evolution. The reason why modern humans are in existance is due to natural selection of the best genes which were spread along all of us. For example, the latest ape primates were homo sapiens and neanderthals. Both of them were a result of genome mutatations, however the homo sapiens had a genome advantage which is why neanderthals no longer exist. Mutations may be random but natural selection isn't. The reason we humans exist today is because we were genetically superior to the neanderthals. This not only goes for us but many other plants and animals that have came to be. http://mic.com...http://www.indiana.edu...DatingFirst off, distance to stars is not an accurate dating of fossils found on Earth. Other dating methods are used to find the dates of things we find here on Earth. Evolution's timeline is perfectly valid because we have calculated the Earth to be in existance for 4.5 billion years old. The Universe's age is calculated to be around 14 billion years old. The distance between stars is no way that we use to calculate the timeline for fossils on Earth. http://www.space.com...http://pubs.usgs.gov...Also, I do apologize as I will try to use other sources to back up my arguments instead of wikipedia. However. wikipedia's science articles are highly revisioned and edited. Your source was just a blog that used biased sources trying to teach creation as a source. None of them were reliable non-biased scientific sources.My opponent goes on many assumptions in his opening argument ("We can also see organisms have significantly changed over time, Why aren't there 500 million year old human fossils?, etc.") as though they are accepted fact. He provides no reason for me to believe that these assumptions are based in fact...Who is one dodging arguments here? I had actually rebutted all of your arguments and showed why they are invalid. Please don't accuse me of dodging arguments when you didn't bother to debunk the first argument. Also, here is more evidence of Evolution. We can see fossils are arranged perfectly in a chronological order. The deeper you get down, the older fossils are estimated to be.
The theory of Evolution

I will be explaining why Evolution is without a doubt right. Evolution is one of the most important aspects in biology, evolution denial is nonsensical and makes no sense. Now without further ado, I will be proving the theory of Evolution.The fossil recordThe fossil record proves Evolution. According to Creation theory, all humans and animals were created from the beggining. However, dating methods for rocks and fossils are very reliable. We can also see organisms have significantly changed over time. 500 million years ago, ancient fish had existeed. A few million years later, the fish had evolved jawbones. Reptiles existed for 300 million years and mammals existed for 230 million years. Now if Evolution isn't real, why are there time lengths between certain species? Why aren't there 500 million year old human fossils? According to Creation theory, everything came from the beggining. The fossil record however indicated that creatures came along the way. Did god just magically create creatures along the way? Creation theory states that current animals today are the animals that survived the global flood.Transitionary FossilsMany transitionary fossils prove Evolution. This image here is an example of the transitionary fossils of the common ancestor we evolved from. How could these fossils have came here without Evolution? From a creationist standpoint, I can only imagine these being a result of mixed-species breeding. If this really was the case, what's with all the mixed breeding species back then? The more human-ish skulls are actually younger fossils. Why do you not see any of the mixbred fossils today? There are also fossils of legged fish in which they later started to slowly get out of the water. Did a fish really reproduce with some mammal? Where did the mammal come from if they didn't exist as long as fish existed? Micro vs Macro evolutionMicro and macro evolution are the SAME thing. Creationists like to group evolution in these two groups, but one is just a smaller scale of Evolution. If an animal has some adaptations within a few years, who is to say in millions of years they will look different after many more adaptations? How the hell can microevolution exist and macroevolution can't? SourcesThe Holy Biblehttp://en.wikipedia.org...;(creation is depicted as a pseudo-science in wikipedia) http://biologos.org...;http://www.theguardian.com...;http://www.talkorigins.org...;http://evolution.berkeley.edu...;
The theory of Evolution

In this debate, I will be arguing that the theory of Evolution is true. Con will be arguing why Evolution isn't true. This debate should be impossible to accept, if you find a way to accept it, you automatically win for being so clever. If you are interested in debating against me, please let me know in the comments. The format will go like this:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRounds 3-4: anything elseRound 5: Anything and you must state why you feel you did better than your opponent I will be arguing for "micro" AND "macro" evolution. The contender can accept micro-evolution as a fact or deny Evolution in general. (even though they are the same thing)
The theory of Evolution

Pro doesn't seem to have the ability to follow a simple train of logic, so I will not press the issue of timeline any further. The voters can decide. On my opponent's fossil layer argument: Why would invertebrates (such as the horseshoe crab), fish, reptiles, and amphibians be found deeper in the ground if these species still exist today? By your logic, they would be found throughout the whole spectrum. The answer is clear: depth of fossils has nothing to do with evolution or age. [1] [2] Regardless of what Pro thinks my view of earth's origin is, this debate is NOT about creation, and my opponent should have dropped the topic long ago. Creation is not the only alternative to evolution. Pro seems to think that explaining how natural selection works will make it any more plausible, but he is unfortunately misguided. Darwin's theory of evolution RELIES on mutation for natural selection to be possible. Mutation is, by definition, random. I extend my previous points on Entropy. (Previous sources cited) My opponent did not accomplish the task put before him. As Pro, my opponent's responsibility was to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Macro evolution is true and observed. My opponent has instead worked off of assumptions, made claims without proper evidence, and provided fabricated records, while dodging clear evidence that disproves his claims. My opponent attempted to make this debate evolution vs. creationism, when creationism is irrelevant to this debate. I have fulfilled my role as Con. As Con, my task put before me was to provide enough evidence to put a reasonable doubt in the truthfulness of evolution. My unanswered claims about constants, entropy, and false evidence have put far more than a reasonable doubt in the contradiction know as evolution. I have fulfilled my duty as Con, while my opponent has failed as Pro. Final Sources: [1]http://www.discoverynews.us... [2]http://tumblehomelearning.com... List of unconvinced scientists: http://www.discovery.org... Even if I, a high school student cannot convince the public, let those who have studied the matter for years convince you.
The theory of Evolution

My opponent's latest argument is a perfect example of wasted, empty rhetoric. My opponent's rebuttals amount to, "I am right, your arguments are false," and provided no new evidence or logic to back up his claims. My arguments on timeline to this point are as follows: -Evolution takes a long time -Earth must be old for evolution to be possible -Scientists must prove that earth is old to prove that evolution is possible -Scientists use dating from star distances as well as radioactive decay and others to age the earth and universe -These dating methods rely on constants -These constants have not been proven to be constant -IF these constants are not constant, evolution's timeline is disproven I am not sure why my opponent cannot follow this simple train of logic. (Quick reminder to my opponent: this debate is about evolution, not evolution vs. creation. Stay on task.) My opponent asserts that even though mutation is random, natural selection is not random, and therefore it does not violate the law of entropy. In the sources I have already cited, Darwin's theory of evolution states that natural selection RELIES on mutation, a random chance event. Thus natural selection in Darwin's theory is random, and violates the law of entropy. My opponent also seems to think that putting an image in his argument somehow provides evidence to his point. But it doesn't, it only illustrates his opinion. I will not cite any more sources for this argument because I do not believe there was significant debate in this round to merit further evidence.
Brains is better than beauty

Good luck to Con! Now I will post my arguments 'Wit beyond measure is a man's greatest treasure'- J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry potter series 1) If you are smart, you are likely to get a good job and you have a greater chance of success in job than beauty, e. g Doctor, lawyer, dentist, scientist, teacher. You will likely be in your smart career for a long time and you can start your own business whereas if you are beautiful you will likely need someone to sponsor you. Plus, smartness is an achievement that you get by studying, beauty is innate(meaning that it is natural),beautiful people shouldn't be acknowledged for their beauty Besides, the true meaning of 'beauty' is undefined, as different people will think differently of the definition, beauty. However, brains are much more defined than beauty. Beauty does not last forever, while brains, and ability do. The brain is the container of knowledge. The basic difference between a beast and a man, is the latter's possession of an advanced brain which gives him the ability to think and allows him to differentiate between good and evil. Physical beauty is an added quality. Life is enlightened for brains and not for beauty. A beautiful person, especially the female gender in this case, can have a dull brain and might just end up harming herself. For example, Marilyn Monroe who had power over most men and ended up having drugs, alcohol and killed herself (Note: I am not saying she was dumb, I am saying her ability to judge between good and bad was extremely poor) I think Con can agree with me that brains has made the most needed inventions such as- electricity, light bulb I will want Con to answer the following questions-What has beauty done useful in humanity?