BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nate River vs. Light Yagami (kira)

Fantastic Argument. However, since this is the midway point of our...let's call it a duel...i must now push away all of your evidence as proof to my own case. IF you looked, it states that " Pieces of the data from L's computer was passed onto us. It seems that L thought that you, Light Yagami, was and still is KIRA. I agree. If those in the department dont agree with me I ask you to think this through and look at the past evidence and how Light reacted to each one." Near and Mello were rivals so it is true that Near and Mello had no control over each other, however Mello broke into Nears "Headquarters" with a girl wearing a towel as hostage. We only see brief pieces of this conversation, but afterwards it seems that they know almost exactly what the other is doing, and while Mello has the DeathNote he kills of Fake members of Nate Rivers team. This further supports the conspiracy that they worked together or at least partially. Yet, as my opponent has stated "Mello kidnapped Takada: As Near himself had admitted, he had no control over Mello and could not anticipate anything that Mello would do." There was times when Near would not know such actions had occured, or is it that he played naive to enrage and misguide people for his own benefit? As for Mikami... He was a puppet, a pawn if you will. If you give a pawn enough power, then they will try to use it to the best of their ability. However, where my opponent states he acted out of the ordinary, I have to say that he was acting in order to protect his master. During this time, he got a call and was asked to get pages from the deathnote. Normally, he goes once a month, but this time he went twice, which seemed weird to people, considering how his life always followed the same path, day after day. Yet, as I have stated, it was in, what he thought, to protect and help his god. As to you statement that Near was nothing compared to L, I have this to say. Team LMN. L was quoted around age 25 at time of death. M was timed at age 18 at time of death. N was still only 17 when Light Yagami died. The huge age gap between L and N caused him to seem less...anbig...no, made him seem just LESS than L. However the fact that Light did not control the deathnote himself, but instead left it in the hands of "lesser beings" as he called them, put him at risk. Near took advantage of this, stole the deathnote, and had someone replace it and copy down the names every day so it would look like Mikami's handwrighting and the people would still die. This is the childlike masterpiece that led to Lights demise. With that said, I will place one card face down in defense mode and end my turn. It's just begginning. :)
Nate River vs. Light Yagami (kira)

Good evening ladies and gentleman. In today's case (and as evident by my opponent's first two sentences), we shall be exploring the matter of whether or not Nate River (Near) simply got lucky when it came to triumphing over Light Yagami. Obviously, it is up to me to disprove this notion. First, I shall respond to PRO's arguments and then I shall make arguments of my own. Having briefly looked over PRO's case, it's essentially a retelling of what occurred in the series. Though not entirely accurate (such as claiming that N had access to all of L's files), it is true for the most part. That said, Near didn't win based on his own ability. He would have most certainly lost if not for a few unpredictable circumstances: Circumstance 1) Mello kidnapped Takada: As Near himself had admitted, he had no control over Mello and could not anticipate anything that Mello would do. Given that a fluke is simply a beneficial occurrence where one's own ability has no control over the outcome, this would qualify as a fluke. Circumstance 2) Teru Mikami behaved out of character and didn't follow Light's plan: Not only was this something which Near didn't contribute to, but for Pete's sake, Mikami had followed Light without question in earlier instances while not necessarily understanding his motivation. For instance, take this panel into consideration:http://www.onemanga.com... He doesn't even question Light's methods even while being doubtful of them. He believes Kira to be God, hence absolute. So why the heck would Mikami then turn around and do something completely opposite? Not only a fluke, but bad writing as well. ;) Due to Mikami's out of character behavior, this allowed Near to get the real notebook from Light, hence make his move. In other words, without Mikami behaving out of character (something which Near had no control over, hence a fluke), Near would have lost. Conclusion: As Light had put it, Near is nothing compared to L. He make a lot of dumb mistakes and played right into Light's hand the entire time while believing the opposite. If not for the two unpredictable occurrences which I mentioned, he would have been dead and Light would have won. With that said, I'll play one card face down and end my turn. Lets have fun. :D
Nate River vs. Light Yagami (kira)

It seems that many fans of the Death Note series have found the fact that Nate River was able to defeat Light Yagami a simple fluke. They seem to think that it was all some sort of spontanious shot of brillance that helped him win. Nate River has a extremely high IQ, he saw through many forms of deception and kept to his solitary belief in what his "Mentor" left him with. This was that, no matter how many steps and investigations were done, Light Yagami seemed to come out squeaky clean, which increased his questioning. A normal person would not be so squeaky clean in such an investigation, and then there is the holding cell incident. Light Yagami gave himself up to L saying that he felt he may be "Kira" and then a few days in he seemed to have a complete change of heart. Then Light seemed to grow more stressed and lost after he touched the Death Note within the hellicopter. L recorded all of these thoughts and ideas and Watari sent those relative thoughts to show the young detectives how a real investigation was done. When L died, Nate River was able to view these files and immediately came to the same conclusion as L. This led to him calling Light Yagami Kira, the first time they met on the phone. He did this so that those around Light would become more curious and cause Light to become more reckless in his inevitable faceoff with such a intellegent detective. He worked with his rival to bring down Yagami, Light. Near's "partners" helped him grab the deathnote from Lights "replacement" while rapidly replacing all data into a fake deathnote which was left in the replacements hands.
studying abroad. advantages & disadvantages

Studying abroad does not ensure that you will have successful employment in foreign country. For us, international students, it is going to be quite hard to find highly-paid job just after graduating, whereas in our hometown, if you have good education you can find a job with rather high salary. Of course, going abroad is always great because travelling expands human's world outlook. But we can not forget that studying abroad is very expensive, whereas in our hometown we have an opportunity to get grants and even scholarships and also visa burocracy is important aspect. Of cource, it is person's own choice whether to go studying abroad or not, but the main priorityis to get high quality education.
studying abroad. advantages & disadvantages

I can`t say that ALL the teenagers change in another country. It depends in parent`s accomplishment. Futhermore, we have opportunities to study the new technologies and most recent science achivements.In addition, we are equipped with the valuaable and updated knowledge which may help us find jobs easily after graduating. Nowadays high quality just develops and I can`t see results. Also, while studying abraod offers great opportunities for a better future,it also has challenges that we must try our best to overcome what happened to make our dream come true.Therefore,If you have a chance i think you should take that chance to study abroad.
studying abroad. advantages & disadvantages

I agree that there are advantages of studying abroad, but let's not forget about disadvantages, such as situations when teenagers where so overwhelmed with living on their own, without parent control, so they started bad habits and also skipping classes. We need to support our educational system by studying in our hometown. Today we have great universities/schools with up-to-date technology, greatly qualified professors so the only thing we need to do is study as best as we can.
studying abroad. advantages & disadvantages

As for me, I think studying abroad is the best way to improve ourselve.As you know, there are obvious advantages to study abroad.Fristly, We have chance to improve our language. I think nothing is better than to learn language with the native speakers.Because we can practise with the local people what we study at school, so it is very useful to improve our listening and speaking skills.It also offer chances to discover the new cultures,way of thinking,history,customs and lifestyles.
computer education should be provided to children from class 1

In today's work environment, people are increasingly dependent on the use of Technology, especially computers. Having marketable job skills means that you need to be proficient with a computer. Furthermore, it's the lack of computer education in schools which is causing children to make poor decisions when it comes to using social networking and being "digital citizens." Computer games boost creativity, hand eye-coordination and promote problem solving skills that can be used outside of the digital realm. Cyber criminals, are going to be criminals regardless if they use computers or not. It's the lure of money, power, and other stresses in society that define if a person will commit criminal acts. If a person has marketable computing skills, they will be more likely to get a job and will be less likely to become involved with crime. Computers are driving innovation and creating industries for those that know how to program them. If children are the pillars or a nation, then we should be strengthening those pillars through education. With the way that that the world and industry is moving, computer education if more important than ever. Getting children interested in computers at an early age will increase there chances of entering a computer related field as an adult. Mastering computer technology at a younger age will make research and school work easier for that child as they progress through the educational system.
computer education should be provided to children from class 1

Computer education not for class 1-computer education should not be given to class one students because day by day technology is increasing with increasing side effects of technology. At one side technology helps in development of our country but on other side misuse is also going on. Cyber crime is one of them and at early age students are also getting in trapped of it. Many students are using social networking sites and most of them spend their whole day on it and doesn't think about their studies which is not good for their future. computer education is important but knowledge of computer at very early age is not good. Some children use to play games, some children are using social networking sites, some are surfing on net and sometimes surfing is of vulgar videos which is not good. If computer education makes a student aware of world on other hands computer education also contributed in spoiling the students. And we all are knowing that students and children are pillars of our nation. so if pillars are weak then what will be the future of our nation.
Religion has no place in the United States' government

"The most hypocritical thing about con's argument was his/her statement that "respect for others freedom should be a priority." How is this possible if religion controls our government?" it's possible because even religous people can recognize the right to let others be. you might be against drunkenness, but allow others the right to be drunk, for example. "How is my belief in the legalization of gay marriage and equality under the law for all people infringing on anyone's rights?" the first amendment gives people the right to religion. that means the right to enforce their morals. there is something very moral about letting localities decide their own affairs, even if you disagree with it. otherwise you are infringing on people's rights. con misses the point that it might be religion that tells someone to be against sodomy, but it is also their perception of natural law and what is good for people. religion and morality are intertwined and cannot be separated like pro is trying to do. fortunately, social minds have changed such that most dont want to ban sodomy, rather they respect the freedom of other people. religion and morality are intertwined and cannot be separated like pro is trying to do.
Religion has no place in the United States' government

Again, con has used the false equivalancy between religion and morality to enforce his belief that religion should be present in our national government. There is no direct proof that those who are religious have better social and moral development, in fact, as can be seen in the graph in Round 2, it tends to be the opposite. Con argues that there is no way to make laws other than using religion to guide your thought process. This in and of itself seems like an illogical argument. As I've said previously, over 90% of our congress identifies as Christian or a denomination of it, and yet, the country has just legalized gay marriage. The reason for this is that those who truly understand congress and understand what our country was founded upon realize that for a country to truly be free and respectful of all different religions and ideologies, the government of this country must be secular. Religion does not correlate to morality in any way. Con also groups "gay marriage, sodomy, killing other people" and "slavery" together as things that are "non-religious." The only thing one could ascertain from this is that con believes that gay marriage should be illegal. Despite this, con argues that I agree with laws that are of the minority and infringe on other people's rights. Really? How is my belief in the legalization of gay marriage and equality under the law for all people infringing on anyone's rights? Religious people do not have the right to infringe.The most hypocritical thing about con's argument was his/her statement that "respect for others freedom should be a priority." How is this possible if religion controls our government? If religion controls the government and the laws it passes, which I should add is unconstitutional due to things such as seperation of church and state and the establishment clause, then this infringes on the freedom of everyone who doesn't agree with those religious laws. If a government passes a law with Christian ideals in mind, it thus infringes on the rights of every athiest, muslim, jew, mormon, etc. in America. This is not what America was founded upon and is a hypocritical perversion of the principles of American freedom.
Religion has no place in the United States' government

pro says you can't use religion as evidence. for the most part, i agree. but that does n't mean you can't use your religion to inform your morality and thus the law. also, to be sure, you could use religion as evidence.... insofar as you can 'prove' a religion, it has that much sway when deciding a law. pro says using religion to pass laws is unconstitutional. there is no other way for people to make laws, however. they can use their own sense of morality, but then they would be going against their religion if there were conflicting ideas. again, people use religion to inform their morality, there's just no way around it like prowould like you to belive. for example, when the nation began, there were laws against sodomy in all the states. if this is true, the founders must not have thought reigion as a basis for law should exist. to be sure, sodomy now is unconstitutional, but that's only because a later amendment passed, and social mores changed. the fact remains, at the beginning and as a basic matter, religion can constitutionally inform morality. on the establishment point, the amendment says there shall be no establishment of religion. that means ohio can't decide to be a mormon state. it doesn't say anything about using religion to inform morality. or "defending" religion insofar as this is true. where do you draw a line? gay marriage, sodomy, killing other people, slavery at least at the founding of the country. there are non-religion basis for all this, people dont just rely on religion, some dont at all. dont their beliefs matter? con seems to go for the laws that are the least common denominator, that majority believes, with anythig else infringing on rights. people form their beliefs by their religion. this includes things like killing others being wrong. if it weren't for their religion, they wouldn't think that way. now, that's not to say that there is something to be said about respecting people's freedom, and not forcing them to do your own view of things. of course, there is a tension here, cause you force people not to kill. everyone draws the lines differently about what is acceptable law and what isn't, what is acceptable impostion and what is not. but to say religion has no place is misguided, it is better to say respect for others freedom should be a priority.
Religion has no place in the United States' government

people form their beliefs by their religion. this includes things like killing others being wrong. if it weren't for their religion, they wouldn't think that way. now, that's not to say that there is something to be said about respecting people's freedom, and not forcing them to do your own view of things. of course, there is a tension here, cause you force people not to kill. everyone draws the lines differently about what is acceptable law and what isn't, what is acceptable impostion and what is not. but to say religion has no place is misguided, it is better to say respect for others freedom should be a priority.
Religion has no place in the United States' government

"it's possible because even religous people can recognize the right to let others be. you might be against drunkenness, but allow others the right to be drunk, for example. "The problem with this statement is that it is simply not true. Religious people for the most part do not let others be. Simply take gay marriage for example. Those on the far right religious branch of politics will do anything they can to preserve their perfect ideals of marriage and stop gays from enjoying their right to equality under the law. As I've said previously, religious people do not have the right to infringe on the rights of others. "the first amendment gives people the right to religion. that means the right to enforce their morals. there is something very moral about letting localities decide their own affairs, even if you disagree with it. otherwise you are infringing on people's rights. "Again, you've completely confused the issue. The first amendment establishes the free exercise of religion as you speak of, but it is specifically AGAINST the establishment of religion in politics (The Establishment Clause). This clause specifically states that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. " To pass laws in favor of certain religions is not freedom, it is theocracy. And such laws would infringe upon all people who do not agree with those religious principles. " con misses the point that it might be religion that tells someone to be against sodomy, but it is also their perception of natural law and what is good for people. religion and morality are intertwined and cannot be separated like pro is trying to do. "This is one of the oldest arguments in the book against gay marriage, or as you call it, sodomy. Homosexuality IS natural. It occurs in nature and scientists have been observing it for decades. "As of 1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been documented engaging in same-sex behaviors" (Bagemihl, Bruce (1999). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. St. Martin's Press). This is besides the point however, as you still seem to believe that you cannot have morality without religion. This is a false equivalancy. Again, as I've said before, research has shown that there is NO correlation between religiousity and moral and social development. The graph I provided back in Round 2 reinforces this statement.
Women's tampons should be banned.

Tampons cause TSS (Toxic Shock Syndrome), which many unsuspecting women are forced to endure every year. There is a much safer alternative: sanitary towels. Some women are unaware of the health risks of using tampons, whilst many others are ignorant to the maximum time period tampons should be used for. To save the suffering of women, the time of doctors and the money in the health fund, tampons should be removed from shops and production ended. Many women are also tricked into thinking that tampons are completely safe, and the chances of TSS are so low, they should be ignored. This is not the case. To save our women from TSS, we must end the use of tampons.
The heavier the school bag is, the lesser we study

I will present my rebuttals for Round 2. RebuttalsI acknowledge the facts and percentages that my opponent has brought up. However, Pro did rarely anything at all to refute my statements in Round 1. Now, moving on to the statement Pro presented in Round 2. - "The problem is actually with the school goers. In a study it has been found that 58% of the students below 10 years of age suffer from many musculoskeletal problems because of the heavy bags. "This is true, but there's one fault in this statement. Does this muscle and skeletal problem last? [1] Dr Luisa Dillner has made her own respectable point with this issue. “Studies have shown that while carrying a heavy bag affects how a person walks (for example changing the head-neck angle, making the shoulders asymmetrical and increasing how much the hips and knees move), there is no lasting evidence that it causes any lasting condition, such as scoliosis. ” (scoliosis: . http://www.webmd.com...)Yes, there may be immediate, lesser issues with young children, but no long term. Dillner goes on with this subject, completely ruling out heavy backpacks. “In most cases, scoliosis (curvature of the spine) has no known cause. Scoliosis does not occur because of anything the patient did or failed to do and … can only be prevented when it is due to rickets or poliomyelitis. ”So, if students are feeling pain or cramps from book bags, it is nothing really serious. Doctors have warned teachers against assigning multiple textbooks and homework, but it doesn't totally bring studying out of the question. Pro, you are making this seem like more of an issue than it actually is. Good luck to Pro in Round 3. Sources: [1] . http://www.theguardian.com...
The heavier the school bag is, the lesser we study

As said by my worthy opponent that the problem is generally faced by young children and not with college goers, I would like to say that the college goers hardly carry bags . Most of the colleges have lockers facility to keep the books in the college. The college goers don't have many different subjects to study rather they are taught a particular subject in detail. The problem is actually with the school goers. In a study it has been found that 58% of the students below 10 years of age suffer from many musculoskeletal problems because of the heavy bags. Even medical experts have issued alerts about the toll of heavy bags on the health of the students. Ideally the weight of the bag should not be more than10% of tthe weight of the students but in many cases it more than 20% . This is what I have to say in this round. Good luck Con for this round.