BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Death battle

Thanks for answering, this is getting really interesting. First of all I did make a mistake, steel is harder than iron. Secondly responding on why Kaneki didn't just escape we have many reasons. 1. Kaneki was non violent: Kaneki had deeply embedded in his life the notion of "it's better to be hurt than inflict it on others." That changed after his torture where he fully accepted his ghoul side and became the badass we know. 2. He was suppressed: Rc suppressants made it impossible for him to try to defend himself. It also made him weaker, still somehow he was able to regenerate after having his fingers and toes ripped off everyday and many other tortures. And I wanted to clear up that the one eyed king was Arima and after killing him Kaneki became the successor. Now that we start with the fun part. And how much mobility does Kaneki have after he does lose his legs?: The answer to that is not much, he keeps going. Obviously needed to go against someone as strong as Arima. He is going against the one eyed owl a SSS rated ghoul. The most dangerous type too a Kakuja, Arima seems unfazed by his fight. Now to why Kaneki is going to win. 1. Even non violent Kaneki can pummel anything if needs be: When his best friend, Hide, was in trouble and about to be killed Kaneki went into Berserk mode and completely destroyed the guy. 2.Kaneki can take all the punishment he is given and dish out just as much: Kaneki as I've proved so many times just won't stay down. http://static4.comicvine.com... The picture I posted is of him taking a blow from Sachi full force. And let's keep in mind Sachi then finishes him by throwing him through 2 reinforced concrete walls. How reinforced you may ask. He was at Cochela, a max security prison for ghouls. And yet he lived through that. 3. Kaneki is incredibly smart: I'll post it as it states in the wiki. Keen Intellect: When facing adversaries, Kaneki often used his intellect and careful planning to quickly and efficiently take out his foe. Kaneki seems to comprehend Takatsuki's work, as well as understand martial arts just by reading about them in a book. 4. Amaterasu needs Ink Pots: As stated in the wiki: Amaterasu's overall strength for using Celestial Brush techniques. Each technique uses a certain amount of ink; if she completely runs out of ink, not only does she lose her ability to use the Celestial Brush, but her normal weapon use is also compromised. No ink and she is handicapped. 5.Looking through her wiki I found this: If Amaterasu runs out of ink during combat she will use an alternate fighting style comprised of bites, charges, and kicks. Yeah that's not going to work, as I've proved before Kaneki can dodge that no problem. The way I see it this will be an endurance battle of who can last longer and Kaneki has all the time in the world. Kaneki is yet to reach his max potential yet still he seems not only qualified to win but almost certain. Amaterasu is yet to feel the wrath of Kaneki, the one eyed king. And there will be no stopping him.
Death battle

This will be really interesting and I think Kaneki will come out on top. While her attacks are strong being able to burn him freeze him electrocute him unless it's an instant attack it will be pretty hard for her to hit him. Kaneki has been shown to dodge rifle fire. For this we can take the m4 carbine which is used by the Japanese special forces which has a rate of fire of 700"950 round/min cyclic. And also Kaneki dodged a quinque which could shoot lighting while half blinded. http://static1.comicvine.com... Speed wise Kaneki has the advantage, for example running against a wall: you need an initial velocity toward the building. That way you are able to obtain friction with your feet because of the force of momentum pressing your feet against the building. No force against the building, no friction, no running up the wall. With each step robbing you of momentum, eventually those steps actually push you away from the wall in order to acquire the force needed for friction. And once you lose contact with the wall, you are no longer running. So for him to be able to do it he would need to keep the momentum going and fight against gravity. While investigating on Amaterasu I found a very clear weakness in the wiki: After being injured, she will slowly heal by herself. This puts her in a bad position as Kaneki is an expert fighter and will be on top of her giving her no breathing room. Meanwhile we have Kaneki who survived being stabbed twice through his skull. https://65.media.tumblr.com... And also healed this in a matter of seconds http://static3.comicvine.com... While head butting iron is pretty impressive Kaneki has more raw strength to utilize. Kaneki ripped through an armor harder than steel, lets not forget iron is harder than steel. I also have the scan of when he punched someone through a four story building http://static7.comicvine.com... I really see no way for Amaterasu to keep Kaneki down you can hurt him sure but as proved in his fight against Arima he will use his Kagune in replacement of his arms and legs. He can take multiple stab wounds and keep fighting. I also had a special ace under my sleeve which is Echolocation. Ghouls are equipped with a kind of sonar, they can place themselves in the dark and collect vital information about human targets just from the sound and resonating vibrations. http://static6.comicvine.com... In conclusion for this round Amaterasu might have fought demons but she stands no chance against the One Eyed King http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net...
Death battle

This will indeed be a challenge. Let's do this!Strength; While Amaterasu usually attacks with her Divine Instruments (Reflectors, Rosaries, and Glaives), she can headbutt enemies, and can destroy iron by doing so. She can also dig through stone, though doesn't use her paws to fight, really.Agility; Amaterasu is average speed (around 37 mph), but she can use the Veil of Mist Celestial Brush technique to slow down time by half.Durability; Amaterasu has fought with many demons, and has survived numerous electric, fire, ice, and swords.Abilities:Celestial Brush; Being from the Celestial Plain, Amaterasu can use the Celestial Brush, an ability that, when Ammy draws certain symbols, she can do numerous things.The Power Slash is Amaterasu's main attack, and can cut iron and diamond (my source states this). Amaterasu can also create Cherry Bombs (which look nothing like cherries.), which are powerful explosives. She can also create lightning, ice, fire, and rain at will, and, if there's an already present source of said element, direct a line of fire, ice, electricity, or water at her foes. And, like I said before, Veil of Mist slows down time by half.And few are capable of this technique. It cannot be taught or copied. You must have some relation to the Celestial Gods in order to use this.[There's also raising the sun, moon, there's Greensprout, rejuvination (restoring damaged objects) and the wall climbing CatWalk, which won't help with this fight.]Conclusion: As you can see, Amaterasu is powerful. Will the sun rise high? Let's find out. I'll do my examination Round 3.Sources;Amaterasu's headbutt; http://okami.wikia.com...;Celestial Brush; http://okami.wikia.com...
Death battle

I was personally challenged to this debate. I choose Amaterasu from Okami, like last time. She fought with Orochi along with Nagi 100 years prior to Okami's events, and defeated him again, and saved Nippon from the ultimate evil, Yami. Recently, she fled from a giant ant warrior, and now she'll face a middle aged guy associated with ghosts.I'm looking at Ken Kaneki's wiki page, and he's formiddable, to say the least. I'll save my arguments for Round 2, though. Let us begin!
Death battle

Seeing you like to discuss death battles I challenge you to one! Rules are ones you are familiar with: 1) The character must be vulernable to normal attacks. (So you can't choose Superman, since you can only fight him with kryptonite) 2) Your character cannot be immortal. 3) You can only choose 1 character 4) No semantics, kritiks, or trolling of any sort. I am free to call you out, but ultimately, it's the voter's decision. 5) No concealing information until Round 5. If you choose say, Midna, and wait until Round 5 to say "By the way, she's got Fused Shadows", that argument will be completely ignored. 6) Forfeiting counts as an instant loss. 7) The fight will take place in New York, no preparation, morals off, and bloodlust on. 8) No outside help. Unless your character can summon clones, it can only be your chosen character. (If he/she can summon clones, only 3 out at a time.) 9) We will be discussing 5 Stats; Strength, Agility, Durability, Abilities, and Feats 10) Your character must already exist. No creating your own character for this fight. 11) You must give some background before starting. Stats: Strength: How much damage the character can deal. Agility: How fast and nimble the character is. Durability: How much damage your character can take. Abilities: Casting magic, teleportation, etc. Feats: Has he done anything noteworthy? I'll be choosing Ken Kaneki/Haise Sasaki from Tokyo Ghoul
Abortion is Immoral

In my opinion, it would be more wrong to perform the abortion than to make the woman keep it for 9 weeks, if in fact it is taking human life. I do think that people should be responsible for their actions, and if they choose to have sex and get pregnant than they should have used contraception or not have sex at all. In cases such as rape, where the woman would be unwilling to have the child in the first place and for other obvious reasons, I think it is her right to have an abortion. A baby is not a citizen. A baby is someone's property; they have to constantly take care of it in order to raise it to be a proper citizen. Foreigners are required to take literacy tests in order to gain citizenship, so should babies born in America. Now, I would have it that we didn't have to separate people into different groups and countries and all of that, but that's the way it is. Morality is all in one's opinion. If one woman deems abortion immoral, she does not have to get one. If another does not wish to carry or have the baby, and it poses harm to her health, then she can choose to get one. I do agree, however, that people should be responsible for their actions. I don't believe that abortion is out right immoral, say as immoral is killing a normally aged person. That is immoral. I do not equate abortion to murder, but as you put it, a tragic sacrifice.
Abortion is Immoral

Con, this is not a debate about the legality of abortion, nor specific rights that people should and should not have access to. For the record, I don't believe that this issue should be decided in a court of law, and I don't wish for abortion to be denied or restricted to any woman, as it isn't anyone's place to force their morality on anyone else (in fact, I am an advocate of the morning after pill and pre-9 week abortion, even though I understand these options to be immoral).This debate is about whether abortion is morally acceptable, and whether a moral society should protect the most vulnerable among them (ie the developing unborn fetus who cannot voice their choice to live)Your point about killing the person with disabilities versus the person who was perfectly healthy neglects one of the key issues surrounding the morality of abortion, which is that in the context of abortion, neither of those people needs to die in order to save the life of the other, which brings me back to the question that you failed to answer from my earlier argument..."As it is not contended that a fetus dies during an abortion, ending their life permanently and taking away any liberty or choice they would have in the future, does Con consider this more moral than compelling a woman to live through her pregnancy of nine months, after which her life and liberty are completely unchallenged should she decide she doesn't want to keep the baby?I say that taking a life permanently is much more immoral than compelling a woman to provide use of her body's resources for a fixed amount of time, after which she can do what she likes."My final response to your argument about the development of a human being is this: when we judge life at a later stage as being more valuable, we come to a sticky situation of being forced to make the consistent argument that a newborn baby's life is less valuable and more morally acceptable to extinguish than an adult's. A newborn baby has many of the same problems that an embryo has, when you compare an embryo to a child and a baby to an adult. Both are much smaller and much less developed. Both have far less understanding and awareness of the world around them, and both are unable to communicate their thoughts and feelings to the same level as the latter. In conclusion, an embryo, like a developing tadpole in a frog egg, is a unique life form at the beginning of its life cycle. Killing one of these is just as immoral as killing an elderly human being or an elderly frog. Saying otherwise is to devalue life in earlier stages of development, which leads to a slippery slope such as the one I layed out in the paragraph above.
Abortion is Immoral

Now we're getting somewhere. To honestly answer the question, "Would you condone killing a person with a disability over someone with no disabilities." Honestly, yes. If I absolutely had to choose between who lives and who dies, the one with the disability would die. In regards to human life: unborn babies don't have memories, feelings, or are even capable of comprehending what is even happening to them like children, teenagers and adults do. Newborn babies can and do sense danger and pain and great fear. Now you say the unborn child has the same rights as children who have made it out of the womb, why? I suppose it should be given the right to vote and the right to freedom of speech and rights to peaceably assemble? I will say in regards to morality that morality is completely subjective. It is up to us, the people, to decide what is and isn't moral for the benefit of society. With freedom comes great responsibility, and unless one is old enough to be able to freely choose for themselves, they are denied the rights that everyone else has, because everyone else is able to exercise their freedom and their rights. I have made my case that it depends on where the fetus is at in development. Now, you disagree, and say that even a zigote can be considered a person. I do not consider a zigote a person, like I don't consider a tadpole a frog; but you see, an early unborn baby isn't even a tadpole; it's an egg. Maybe in the latter stages of embryo development, it is as close to an actual baby as can be. There are babies born prematurely that do quite well in the world. I am open with putting a restriction on abortion in the latter stages.
Abortion is Immoral

I will reiterate chipedcup's contention in my own words: basically, if a fetus is in fact a human being then it is immoral to abort that unborn human being and equal to murder. If, however, the fetus is not a fully developed human, then it is acceptable to abort it if need be. I'm not sure if I agree with that premise, but for the sake of this debate I will. I will start out by saying that it depends on how far in development the fetus is: scientifically in it's early stages a fetus is nothing like a human, nor is it capable of comprehending what is even happening to it when an abortion is carried out. We can see that up until 9 weeks a fetus only starts to resemble a human being and it doesn't even develop a brain until 7 weeks. I would like to see chipedcup's rebuttal to the chicken egg analogy: how smashing a chicken's egg is a lot less of a sacrifice and an emotional impact than killing an actual chicken, or a chick for that matter. You wouldn't call smashing an egg 'chicken murder.' I would like to ask my opponent, coming back to the fetal development argument, would you agree that it depends on where the fetus is at in development, that's it's not fully human at it's early stages? At least, if it were unable to comprehend or feel anything, would you agree that these circumstances would make an abortion moral, or at least, permissible? Or would you argue that it is immoral even from the very start? I will finish by saying that an unborn baby does not have the same rights as a born baby because by it's definition, it hasn't been born; babies out of the womb get certain rights that babies inside the womb don't have. The reason is that the born babies are now severed from their mother and need external care. So, chipedcup will need to respond to these three things: the chicken/egg analogy, his/her thoughts on fetal development, and will comment, I imagine, on the rights of the born children vs. unborn. I am open to any conjecture, whether from chipedcup or comments and voters; my mind is not yet made up on this topic.
Abortion is Immoral

Hello, this is a debate about the morality of abortion (not whether it should be legalized/banned). I am new to the website, so I am hoping that this is the correct format to frame the debate. If not, please feel free to correct me :) My position is that abortion is a strictly immoral action, as when a woman consents to have an abortion, and a doctor carries the procedure out, they are directly causing the death of a human being. Abortion is a very complex issue, as women who seek abortion do so for various, generally emotionally distressing, reasons. However, there is a singular core difference between the way pro-life and pro-choice advocates view this debate. As a secular humanist and a pro-life advocate, I see a fetus as a live human being, whereas most consistent pro-choice arguments hinge on the presupposition that a fetus is not yet alive or a human being. If they are right, then abortion would absolutely be moral as it improves the quality of life for the woman during those 9 months that she would have been pregnant and potentially allows her to access a higher level of productivity and happiness throughout the rest of her life. However, if fetuses are in fact live human beings, then it is always an immoral action. Even if the life of the mother is at risk, and an abortion must be performed in order to save her, it is still resulting in the death of another human being. This is at best an unfortunate sacrifice, and at worst a deliberate extermination of a potential threat. If fetuses are live human beings, then they deserve all of the same protections afforded to infants located in the outside world. Our responsibility as a moral society is to care for the needs of women and find ways to support them in such a way that the death of another individual is not required.
Nuke IS.

I agree that this is a great Nuking opportunity but with all due respect what happens next? You will have not just a country but an entire region effected by this. There will be no opportunity for a government to be erected in its place and the reason most countries fall in to ruin is because leadership is abolished and given up for grabs for the people to fight over who would run the country better. It would cause too much chaos in the long run and another militant group would eventually take its place in a radioactive land up for grabs.
should we nuke north korea

Starting off the second round I would like to present the case of the two atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the year 1945. These devastations have made a significant mark and aftermath that is still present today. I would lie to point out that, the attack had shocked the world and had taken out two major cities in Japan. This attack was only afflicted by an atom bomb, a more minor nucleic weapon. Present day nucleic weaponry consist of arsenals of pure destruction that are ten times more powerful that the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atom bombs combined. In addition to that, the aftermath is more horrific as future generations would also be affected.
Tourism benefits the world.

CON claims that these crusades were indeed examples of toursim due to these men enjoying brothels as well as looked at the old historical sites, however, it was not these acts which were deemed a problem (assuming they occured), but rather all of the fighting and the murder. If the crusades were merely restricted to a bunch of men going to historical sites and enjoying brothels, there'd be no negative consequences. Hence, CON's argument fails. Second, the fact that every country does not go to war is what the problem with CON's argument is. The only way it can work is if he can prove that tourism causes war. There being countries that do not go to war yet prosper from tourism disproves his assertion. IMPORTANT INFO HERE:. http://img2.imageshack.us... In the end, we must keep in mind that tourism is a force that serves to encourage global unity and it is also an excellent means of boosting an economy in all parts of the world. Thanks for the debate.
Tourism benefits the world.

Hello. thanks for the reply. After taking a gander, as instructed, I can see that a tour is something with a purpose of pleasure and/or inspection. Whilst these crusades had a primary purpose of war, these travelling men also undoubtedly enjoyed the brothels and looked at the old historical sites (this was there acclaimed "holy land"). Therefore we can gather that their secondary purposes did render them tourists, and thus all the negative aspects of the crusades can be attributed to them. Second, even if not every country goes to war with every other country, a lot do, and it is devastating (I concede that on rare occasions it will be beneficial if the country is in atrocious conditions beforehand). Third, the lack of ability to coexist that PRO cites as causing conflicts was caused in the first place by the tourism that I have spoken of already - with out this touring the cultures would never have clashed and come to disagreement. http://img23.imageshack.us...
Tourism benefits the world.

CON's first point: He argues that tourism caused the poor relations which caused the kidnappings cited in round one. He rationalizes this by citing the crusades and insisting that they were an example of "the activity or practice of touring, esp. for pleasure." In response, let us first take a gander at the definition of "tour": http://www.askoxford.com... As you can clearly see in the definition, it implies visiting another place for the purpose of pleasure or inspection. The crusades were not acts of pleasure or inspection upon other countries, but rather acts of war and mass conversion. The mere act of individuals touring alone had nothing to do with the countries actually invading. As for CON's citation, that page speaks nothing of tourism causing conflicts. Rather, it distinctly points out that both nations did not wish to accept each others' differences. IMPORTANT: http://img149.imageshack.us...
Tourism benefits the world.

I would like to reinforce my previous points. First, PRO said that the cited incident tourist kidnap was due to "poor relations" between the West and Iraq. Although this is undoubtedly true, can it not be that these poor relations were actually caused by tourism in the first place? The definition of tourism is "the activity or practice of touring, esp. for pleasure". (Dictionary.com) Could what has sparked these conflicts and what has led to their escalation not be the practice of countries leaving their borders and "touring" around the world, invading countries here and there, for example Europe and its 'crusades' in the Middle Ages. http://www.international.ucla.edu... - This page supports my argument about ancient 'tourism' causing the East/West conflicts. This image seems to conclude nicely: http://img105.imageshack.us... (You are welcome to do the same.)